BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Paper, entitled ‘Report of Inspection of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’, dated 4 February 2015.—(Mr Evennett.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Gaza

Anne McGuire: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the tripartite mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza.

Justine Greening: We are supporting the temporary Gaza reconstruction mechanism to facilitate the import of construction materials into Gaza. Almost 40,000 people have now been able to buy materials to repair their homes. There is still a lot more to do, but the mechanism is a step in the right direction.

Anne McGuire: Does the Secretary of State agree that the UN needs to take action to ensure that all the building materials going into Gaza are used to alleviate the dire conditions of the Gazan people, rather than diverted by Hamas for military purposes?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady is quite right to raise that as an issue to be considered. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that what she is worried about is happening. In addition, part of our support for the reconstruction mechanism has been to fund a monitoring process so that the right checks can be made to avoid such things happening.

Peter Bone: I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has said. How on earth does she know that Hamas is not using such material to build tunnels for terrorist purposes? How do we know?

Justine Greening: There is a mechanism to check and control the materials as they come into Gaza. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the very difficult issues involved in reconstruction. Even with the mechanism in place, we expect reconstruction to take two to three years. Ultimately, the alternative to not using this sensible mechanism is for Gazans who have been forced out of their homes and have lost their homes simply to have nowhere to live. That situation is clearly not sustainable—it would certainly not be good for the many children who live in Gaza—and we are therefore right to be taking action to address it.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 746, standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House? It salutes the Big Ride from Edinburgh to London by 1,000 cyclists, which will take place later this year to provide funds for the Middle East Children’s Alliance, a non-profit organisation dedicated to helping deprived children who are war victims in Gaza. The right hon. Lady has an admirable record on this issue. Is she willing to give her support to the Big Ride?

Justine Greening: I was not aware of the early-day motion that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I will certainly take a look at it. It sounds as if it is a very valuable fundraising effort. As I have set out, we are absolutely determined to play our part in supporting the Palestinian Authority to enable it steadily to rebuild after the conflict in Gaza.

Roger Williams: Many of my constituents, including a group called Knighton Action for Peace and Justice, have grave concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. How are the Government using their influence to encourage Israel and Palestine to reach a more satisfactory agreement about water resources in the occupied territories?

Justine Greening: A significant amount of infrastructure was damaged during the crisis over the summer. Part of the £20 million we committed at the reconstruction conference attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to help to replace the infrastructure that has been lost. All the discussion and debate we can have today is simply palliative while a long-term political settlement is being reached, which is the only thing that can in the end improve the long-term prospects of people living in that part of the world.

Gavin Shuker: Some 100,000 homes were destroyed or damaged in the most recent crisis in Gaza, and flooding, heavy snow and plummeting temperatures have now intensified the terrible conditions faced by Palestinian men, women and children. While I was in the Occupied Palestinian Territories last month people were literally freezing to death because they struggled to get hold of the materials they need to rebuild. Will the Secretary of State explain why her Government pledged £20 million to help such efforts, but have so far disbursed only a quarter of that figure?

Justine Greening: It is important that the hon. Gentleman reflects on the broader assistance that we provide. As he will be aware, over the summer we provided £17 million of emergency assistance. I have talked about the £20 million that we have pledged to the Gaza reconstruction mechanism, which we are in the process of delivering. He will be aware that from 2011 to 2014, we pledged significant resources of about £350 million. We are one of the leading supporters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides key day-to-day services. He is right to draw attention to the conditions in which people are living. That is why we provide so much support, of which I am sure he is supportive.

Commonwealth Multilateral Agencies

Chi Onwurah: What support her Department has provided to Commonwealth multilateral agencies since May 2010; and whether she plans to change the funding her Department provides to those organisations.

Desmond Swayne: Since 2009, DFID has provided £180 million to six Commonwealth organisations. The budget is some £50 million this year and it will remain so in the next financial year.

Chi Onwurah: The diversity of the Commonwealth of nations is part of its strength. Programmes such as the Commonwealth scholarships and the Local Government Forum build on that by supporting education and the exchange of best practice among Commonwealth citizens and Governments. Does the Minister agree that at a time of rising extremism, both political and religious, in a number of Commonwealth countries, the contribution of those programmes should be celebrated and extended to build shared values and understanding?

Desmond Swayne: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. Looking at the budget, the scholarship fund currently runs at £23.6 million and next year it will be £23.6 million. There is no cut whatsoever—rejoice!

Developing World (Humanitarian Assistance)

Graham Allen: What steps she is taking to target humanitarian assistance at the poorest children in the developing world.

Desmond Swayne: We work with agencies such as UNICEF and Save the Children to meet the immediate needs of children, but our key agenda is to link humanitarian assistance with long-term development.

Graham Allen: Getting food and shelter to children is essential, but will the Minister consider the global investment that is necessary in the social and emotional rehabilitation of children? That will make them less traumatised by their experience; enable them to raise good families of their own and to rebuild their cultures; and, perhaps above all, make them more resistant to political and religious fundamentalism.

Desmond Swayne: Yes; absolutely. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in driving forward that agenda. He is right that people will not achieve their potential while they are traumatised and do not have education and proper support. One third of refugee children are without primary education and some three quarters are without secondary education. It is for that reason that we have more than doubled our budget for education in conflict-affected and fragile states. We are determined to drive forward that agenda internationally.

James Gray: An outstandingly good charity in my constituency, Alive & Well, ships essential equipment such as water purification equipment to some of the poorest children in the world, particularly in Sierra Leone. The next shipment was due to go on 24 February, but the charity has discovered that the import duties that are being applied by the Government of Sierra Leone, which are up to 100% of the value of the goods, will make it impossible. Will the Minister take up the matter with his opposite number in the Sierra Leonean authorities to reduce the unfair import duties?

Desmond Swayne: I am happy to take up that matter and to discuss it with my hon. Friend.

Gregory Campbell: Almost 5 million children die every year across the globe, principally because of malnutrition. What targets are being set internationally to ensure that that figure reduces year on year?

Desmond Swayne: We have a project to reduce stunting. We spend a great deal of our budget on humanitarian relief that is targeted at children. It is a problem to which we are alive and on which we are leading.

Syria

David Jones: What steps her Department is taking to support children affected by the conflict in Syria.

Justine Greening: The UK has pledged £700 million so far in response to the Syria crisis, providing food, medical care and relief items to some of those most in need, including children. That includes the £50 million that I announced at the UN General Assembly for the No Lost Generation initiative, which will provide education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children who are affected by the crisis in Syria and the region.

David Jones: Children who are displaced by the Syrian crisis not only lose their homes, but are at risk of having their life chances permanently and irreparably damaged. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to help ensure that Syrian refugee children can not only expect adequate primary and secondary education, but have some hope of higher education?

Justine Greening: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the need to address the lack of education for children affected by this crisis, and the package that I mentioned announcing at the UN covers three new programmes specifically for education for Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan and Lebanon. Those programmes will be about improving the quality of education, particularly for early-grade primary school children in Jordan, and integrating Syrian refugee children into the system. My right hon. Friend is right to say that more needs to be done, and we launched the international No Lost Generation initiative precisely to get more and broader support for the issue.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is simply not possible for some of those children to receive the support and treatment they need in countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, and that her Government should be doing more to resettle Syrian children and their families in this country?

Justine Greening: I agree it is important that we play our role in the refugee crisis and provide refuge to people affected by it, which is precisely what we are doing. On helping children where they are—the overwhelming majority of children affected are still in the region—we are working hand in hand with the Lebanese Government to ensure that there is the capacity for children to get education. There is more to be done, but we can be proud of the leading role played by the UK.

Jeremy Lefroy: On the visit to Jordan and Lebanon by the International Development Committee last year we saw the huge amount of work that those countries are doing to support children affected by the conflicts. What is the Department doing to ensure that the children of Jordan and Lebanon do not suffer because of the huge burdens placed on their public school systems?

Justine Greening: We are working directly with both those Governments to ensure that our programmes help not only Syrian refugee children but, particularly in Lebanon, a host of children who were in school but perhaps did not get the textbooks they needed. We have provided a much broader package, and it is important that host communities are helped to cope with the strains that the refugees are putting on them.

Ian Lucas: Over a year ago, the Government committed to allowing a small number of refugees from Syria into the UK, including children with specific medical needs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many children from Syria with specific needs have been allowed to come to the UK?

Justine Greening: I do not have that precise information but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. As I said in response to an earlier question, that programme is in place to help Syrian refugees who particularly need to take advantage of it. The most important thing is to get broad international support to help the 3.8 million refugees who are now in the region and need assistance.

Ebola

Richard Graham: What the cost has been of the UK’s contribution to the response to the Ebola outbreak to date.

Justine Greening: The UK has committed £325 million to tackling the Ebola crisis. The UK is leading the international response to the crisis in Sierra Leone by diagnosing and isolating Ebola cases more quickly, trebling the number of treatment beds, supporting burial teams, and assisting in the research for a vaccine.

Richard Graham: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that at the recent London conference, Britain was able to persuade other Governments to contribute financially? Does she agree that we should be proud of the hugely positive contribution made by Great Britain through DFID’s budget—symbolised by Nurse Cafferkey and others with medical and other expertise—to resolving the Ebola outbreak?

Justine Greening: Yes; the international effort has involved not only financial assistance from a host of countries, but assistance in kind from countries such as Australia which is helping to set up Ebola treatment centres. I pay tribute to the work done across the Government, not just in my Department. As my hon. Friend says, vital work has been done by Public Health England, NHS workers and our amazing Ministry of Defence and soldiers who have done an incredible job. Without their efforts none of this would have been possible, and thanks to them we are now turning the corner.

Mary Creagh: The right hon. Lady’s permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that one of the key lessons of Ebola was the need for more research and development on vaccines. Between 2008 and 2013, Britain gave £40 million to support the work of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. I understand that IAVI’s research contributed to the science that led to the fast-track Ebola vaccines, yet she has slashed the UK’s support for IAVI from £40 million to just £5 million for 2013 to 2018. Does she regret that 86% cut?

Justine Greening: No, I do not. The hon. Lady talks about the science, but we stopped funding the vaccine research because the basic science to support a vaccine was not in place. To have continued putting money into this research, when the early indications were that it was not going to deliver a vaccine, would not only have been a waste of money, but done a disservice to our investment into tackling AIDS. I should also point out that, in 2009-10, the Government invested £249 million in tackling HIV/AIDS, but in 2013-14, we increased that by 50% to £372 million.

Mary Creagh: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady heard me say that IAVI’s research contributed to some of the science that led to the Ebola vaccine. The point of research is that it builds knowledge.
	The world must never again be left so exposed to Ebola. The good news that Ebola infections are falling in Liberia has meant that the trial of Brincidofovir as a drug therapy for Ebola was halted last Friday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need urgently to roll out the Ebola vaccine trials from Liberia to Sierra Leone and Guinea to discover which vaccine works?

Justine Greening: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware, but we have worked hand in hand with the Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline to help those trials to come forward faster. In fact, the
	Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster , my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Oliver Letwin) has played a pivotal role internationally in ensuring that those trials could progress. It would be more constructive if she asked some relevant questions, rather than scoring pointless political points.

Sustainable Development Goals

Seema Malhotra: What recent progress has been made on negotiations to agree the sustainable development goals.

Naomi Long: What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in preparations to set new UN development goals in September 2015.

Justine Greening: The UK plays a leading role internationally at the EU and UN and bilaterally to push for an ambitious and implementable post-2015 framework. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) will know, the first session of intergovernmental negotiations on the SDGs has concluded, and the open working group proposal includes 17 goals and 169 targets. We support the breadth and balance of the proposal but will be arguing for a much more concise and workable agenda as negotiations progress.

Seema Malhotra: Millennium development goal 3 was to promote gender equality and empower women. Will the Secretary of State be championing the inclusion in the new SDGs of texts on ending violence against women and girls and supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as statements in the declaration of the commission on the status of women?

Justine Greening: Absolutely—yes. The Government play a leading role in raising the issue of violence against women and girls, and I pay tribute to the amazing work done by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). I can assure her that we will continue to play that role.

Naomi Long: The Secretary of State has already indicated the complexity of the goals under discussion. What steps are being taken to ensure effective integration of the different goals, particularly the proposed target on under-fives mortality and those on water, sanitation and hygiene, given that most diarrhoeal diseases result from a lack of investment in that sector?

Justine Greening: I very much agree with the hon. Lady. The key to success in getting a sensible outcome for a new post-2015 framework is to ensure that it is not a shopping list, but that it actually works as an overall strategy to bring change on the ground and lift people out of poverty over the next 15 years.

Topical Questions

Guy Opperman: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: My Department continues to work closely and effectively with the Sierra Leonean Government to defeat Ebola, and our strategy is working—there are now signs that the infection rate is falling. We are far from complacent, however, because many cases remain, and we will see our mission through to the very end.
	Since the last session of DFID questions, I have attended the Gavi replenishment conference in Berlin, at which Gavi surpassed its replenishment target of $7.5 billion from donors, which will help to immunise 300 million additional children and save more than 5 million lives. The Government have confirmed an additional commitment to Gavi of £1 billion in funding from 2016 to 2020.

Guy Opperman: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. On Syria, along with many colleagues I visited the Nizip 2 camp on the Turkish border last year and met the 17,000 refugees based there, half of whom were children. What the children particularly need is books in Arabic, so they can learn and then become the doctors and engineers they want to be. What steps are the Secretary of State and her Department taking to ensure that these children get the Arabic books they need?

Justine Greening: I too have had the chance to visit one of the refugee camps on the Syrian/Turkish border. The Turkish Government have put an immense amount of investment into supporting those people, and indeed providing some of the best quality refugee facilities that I have seen. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that textbooks are an important part of that. We have provided textbooks in Lebanon; I would be happy to look further at the point that he has raised.

Ann Clwyd: Question 2, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Let us hear it. The right hon. Lady’s moment is now.

Ann Clwyd: I will take my moment, Mr Speaker. Over 30 years ago, this country was very generous in response to the Ethiopian famine, but now, over the last three years, we have given £1 billion in aid—despite the fact that the security forces in Ethiopia are raping, torturing and killing. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in Ethiopia on these matters?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady is right to raise her concerns about the behaviour of the police and security services. We raise our concerns, too. That should not overshadow the rest of the important work we are doing to help people in Ethiopia steadily to lift themselves out of poverty. If we consider development over the last 30 years, we can really see that Ethiopia has come on a tremendous way since it first appeared on our TV screens when it was facing the famine of 1984.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Following on from the question about Gaza, may I ask what this Government are doing to assist the Palestinian Authority in their economic development of the west bank?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of economic development. In respect of our bilateral programme, we work on three key areas, and one of those, of course, is indeed wealth creation. We are promoting private sector development that can contribute to state and peace building by increasing fiscal sustainability and reducing unemployment and poverty.

Douglas Carswell: In the light of the problems with the Private Infrastructure Development Group, does the Secretary of State believe we get good value for money from the £12 billion a year overseas aid budget?

Justine Greening: Yes, I do. We have been more clear-cut about the outcomes we are trying to achieve. As for the facility the hon. Gentleman mentions, it has pulled in £6.8 billion-worth of investment in infrastructure in some of the poorest countries in the world, which will help them steadily to make their way out of poverty. Surely creating the markets of the future is one of the smartest things we can do if we want to stay prosperous ourselves.

Nicola Blackwood: More cowardly and unforgiveable executions have again reminded us of the depths of ISIL’s depravity. As temperatures plummet in northern Iraq, will the Secretary of State update us on progress in providing humanitarian assistance to the 5.2 million Iraqis affected by this brutal conflict?

Justine Greening: Yes, I will. It is worth saying that the reason we have women and girls at the heart of our international development agenda is that we know they have no rights whatever in so many parts of the world, so my hon. Friend is absolutely—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. These are extremely important matters, affecting very vulnerable people. The answers from the Secretary of State should be heard.

Justine Greening: On Iraq in particular, we work extremely hard on the so-called winterisation approach, ensuring that tents are warm, that people have blankets and that appropriate shelter, food and sanitation are in place. That has been done, but the challenge in the region is now immense. The Syrian crisis alone has seen 3.8 million refugees.

Seema Malhotra: Many people who live and work in the United Kingdom, including people in my constituency, wish to send money back to their families in other parts of the world. Initiatives from companies such as Xendpay are starting to challenge some of the costs of money transfer. What is the Secretary of State doing to address the charging of exorbitant fees of up to 20% for money transfer services such as those provided by Western Union?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the role played by remittances, which are a key part of the grand sweep of cash flow into developing countries. As she will know, we are working very hard in countries such as Somalia to ensure that families can continue to send money back to their relatives. I agree with her that one of the most important things we can do is introduce competition to the market, as well as helping to develop banking services so that people have more choice.

Stuart Andrew: What work is the Department doing to bring about behavioural change in areas that are affected by Ebola, and has it made an assessment of the impact of that on transmission rates?

Justine Greening: So-called social mobilisation has been key to bearing down on transmission rates. We understand that they are now well under 1%, which is great news. If we are to combat local outbreaks, however, it is vital for people to understand how to stay safe, and DFID has played a major role in bringing together a consortium of different organisations to help to ensure that that happens.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Phil Wilson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the sickening murders in Syria of the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto and the Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Moaz al-Kasasbeh, and I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with their families at this very difficult time. We should also think of our own pilots and their families, and of all those who serve. I can assure the House that we will not stop until the murderous ISIL extremists who are behind this, and their poisonous ideology, are eradicated.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Phil Wilson: May I associate myself with the comments that the Prime Minister has just made?
	A constituent of mine, an agency worker, told me that he only pays income tax if he works overtime. Part of his wages is paid in expenses, even when he is on holiday, which affects his national insurance contributions and therefore his benefit and pension entitlement. The sum of £16 a week is deducted from his wages to administer his payroll, and he even has to pay for his own pay slip. Is that any way in which to treat our working people?

David Cameron: We are looking into abuse by the so-called umbrella companies that can sometimes bring such things about, but the broader point is that I want to help people like that by cutting their taxes and taking them out of income tax altogether. We have already taken 3 million of the lowest-paid people out of income tax altogether, and we plan to enable people to earn £12,500 before they start to pay income tax, which will take another 1 million out of it altogether.

David Willetts: Will the Prime Minister welcome the increase in the number of students—especially those from the poorest backgrounds—who are applying for university places? Will he confirm that both universities and students would lose as a result of the reduction in funding that would be caused by a cut in fees? How could a policy that only helped rich graduates possibly be called progressive?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The coalition’s university policy was a long-term policy which has resulted in a record number of students going to university, as well as an increase in the number of university students from the poorest backgrounds. That is good for our country, good for students, and good for universities. What a contrast with Labour Members, who told us four years ago that they were going to get rid of tuition fees and who, four years later, have absolutely nothing to say about it. When will they make up their minds?

Ed Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in condemning the appalling murders of the Jordanian pilot and the Japanese hostages by ISIL. These were sickening and despicable acts, and simply reinforce our determination to defeat that evil organisation.
	Everyone pays stamp duty on stock market transactions except those involved in hedge funds, who are allowed to avoid it. That is costing many hundreds of millions of pounds. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act?

David Cameron: I have to say that for 13 years, during many of which the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, they did absolutely nothing about this. What this Government have done is more than any previous Government to make sure that individuals and companies pay their taxes properly. I have to say I am delighted that he has raised the economy on the morning after his shadow Chancellor could not name one single business leader who backed Labour.

Ed Miliband: This is Prime Minister’s questions and the Prime Minister should try to answer the question. I asked him a very specific question about why hedge funds are not paying stamp duty on stock market transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is being funded to the tune of £47 million by the hedge funds. Everyone knows that is why he is refusing to act, but what is his explanation?

David Cameron: Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we came into office foreigners did not pay stamp duty on the properties they bought, foreigners did not pay capital gains tax on the properties they bought, and because of his tax rates City hedge fund managers were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned their offices. That is what we had to sort out. But let me put it to him again: the day after his shadow Chancellor was asked on television whether he could think of one single business leader, do you know what he said, Mr Speaker? He said, “Bill Somebody”! Bill Somebody is not a person—Bill Somebody is Labour’s policy.

Ed Miliband: I will tell the Prime Minister what people on the Opposition Benches are doing: we are standing up for hard-working families and businesses while he is a friend of the tax avoiders. I am going to keep asking him the question until he answers it. It is a very specific question about hedge funds avoiding stamp duty on their share transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is bankrolled by the hedge funds. He claims he wants to act on tax avoidance. Why won’t he act?

David Cameron: If the right hon. Gentleman has a good submission for the Budget, he can talk to the Chancellor about it. He says what they are doing on his side of the House. Let me tell him what he has been doing on his side of the House: two former Labour Health Secretaries completely condemned his health policy; all the leading university vice-chancellors condemned his university policy; and he cannot find one single business leader to back his economic policy. Is it any wonder that the Chuckle Brothers have lodged an official complaint and said they do not want to be compared to the two clowns opposite?

Ed Miliband: I am afraid I am going to keep asking the question until the Prime Minister has an answer. Let me explain it to him. [Interruption.] You can’t help him George; you’re too far away. Let me explain it to him very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting. The questions and the answers will be heard. This is a democratic Chamber and no one, but no one, is going to be shouted down. The point is very simple and very obvious, and I hope everyone can grasp it.

Ed Miliband: Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions, but the hedge funds are protected. We have been calling for action on this. It could raise of hundreds of millions of pounds. Why won’t he act?

David Cameron: We have acted on stamp duty. We will continue to act on stamp duty, but the right hon. Gentleman sat for 13 years in the Treasury and never did anything about it. If he wants to make sure that he acts on tax avoidance and evasion, why does he not start with Labour’s biggest donor, Mr John Mills— yes, we all remember this—who gave his donation in shares in order to cut his tax bill? Has he paid back the taxes yet?

Ed Miliband: I am really pleased the Prime Minister wants to talk about donors. Let us talk about his donors: £7 million—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The question will be heard. It is a very simple point. I have had to make it a second time, and I will make it as many times as necessary: the right hon. Gentleman will be heard.

Ed Miliband: I was talking about the Prime Minister’s donors, Mr Speaker: £7 million from Lord Laidlaw, a tax exile living in Monaco; £3 million from Michael Hintze with a company based in Jersey; and Michael Spencer, who gave him £4 million, involved in the LIBOR scandal. Same old Tories.
	Now, let us give the Prime Minister a fifth chance. I know he does not do his homework, but this is his fifth chance. The hedge funds are avoiding tax to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he now promise, from that Dispatch Box, to act for the national health service?

David Cameron: We had Labour for 13 years: no action on stamp duty, foreigners not paying stamp duty, foreigners not paying capital gains tax, no bank levy. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tax exiles: Andrew Rosenfeld, the man who raises his money, was for years a tax exile living in Geneva. That is what we get. But is it any wonder the right hon. Gentleman wants to find one particular issue to raise today? He cannot talk about minimum wages because his policy is to cut them, he cannot talk about energy prices because his policy to keep them up, he cannot talk about universities because his policy to trash them, and he cannot name a single business leader who supports Labour. No wonder the person who wrote “Things can only get better” says it no longer applies to Labour.

Ed Miliband: So basically, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out: five chances to answer the question, no answer coming. Let us close that tax loophole so we can have more doctors, more nurses, more care workers and more midwives. This is the difference: this is a Prime Minister who will not tackle tax avoidance for the simple reason that too many of his friends would get caught in the net. They are the party of Mayfair hedge funds and Monaco tax avoiders, and under him you always know that it is one rule for those at the top and another rule for everyone else.

David Cameron: There is only one person who has been found out this week and that is the leader of the Labour party: his economic policy has collapsed; his health policy has collapsed; his universities policy has collapsed. The most vital election in a generation is coming, and people can see the choice: a Labour party that is anti-enterprise, anti-business and that is falling apart under scrutiny, and a Conservative party turning this country around. That is the choice: competence from us, chaos from them.

Steven Baker: This week we have seen that fear is spreading across this land among senior business people. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course of his—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question must be heard. If he wants to continue the last bit of it, he can: spit it out.

Steven Baker: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course to prosperity with his long-term economic plan?

David Cameron: We will stay the course, because we can now see 1.75 million more people in work, the deficit down by half, the British economy growing faster than any major economy in western Europe, and business and enterprise large and small saying we have the right plan and we should stick to that plan. That is what we will do: it is competence versus chaos.

Susan Elan Jones: They were elected by fewer than 15% of the public and their first elections cost £80 million: why will the Prime Minister not scrap these ridiculous police and crime commissioners and instead put the money into front-line policing that would keep our communities safe?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady might want to ask why her former colleague Alun Michael stood for one of these posts. I think this is bringing accountability to our police service, because everybody knows there is now one person they have to account to. In the past, people did not know how to access their police authorities; they do now.

Stuart Andrew: When my right hon. Friend visits Yorkshire tomorrow, he will be spoilt for choice by the number of businesses that are investing in creating jobs in Leeds, bringing unemployment in my Pudsey constituency down 55%, in Leeds West down 39%, and in Morley and Outwood down 51%. Does that not show that all parts of Leeds are contributing to the northern economic powerhouse, thanks to this Government’s economic policies?

David Cameron: I am very much looking forward to explaining how our long-term economic plan will really benefit and continue to benefit Yorkshire and north-east Lincolnshire. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have got employment up by 114,000 since the election; private sector employment is up by almost 200,000 since the election. [Interruption.]

Edward Balls: Come to Morley and Outwood.

David Cameron: The shadow Chancellor says come to Morley and Outwood. Believe me, I will be there, and I am afraid to say I have a plan to increase unemployment in that constituency by one, to give him a bit more time to remember a single business man who supports him.

Angus Robertson: The Labour party was in power for 13 years and failed to deliver a single additional power to Scotland that was outlined in the vow. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems have been in power for five years and, like Labour, they are not proposing the real home rule that was promised. Do the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party now understand why the voters of Scotland are sick of the Westminster parties, in contrast with the SNP, which will always put Scotland first?

David Cameron: This coalition Government have actually taken part in a massive exercise of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, and have already set out a significant extra increase in powers that will take place whoever is standing at this Dispatch Box after the election. Yes, we have had a Westminster Government here for the last five years. We have an SNP Government in Scotland, and as the new Labour leader in Scotland has pointed out, under the SNP, A and E waiting times in Scotland are now worse than they are in England. So apparently, it is all right to compare Scotland and England, but of course, it is not all right to compare
	England and Wales. That is interesting, isn’t it? It is a fascinating political strategy for the Scottish Labour leader to say that life is always better under the Tories, but I agree.

Adrian Sanders: Given the success the Prime Minister claims for the coalition’s long-term economic plan, why, if allowed to govern alone, does he want to change it to bring in even deeper cuts to public services?

David Cameron: I believe that after seven years of economic growth, which is what we will have had by 2018, we should be starting to pay down the deficit by running a surplus. I think that is something that every business and every family in the country will understand. You need to fix the roof when the sun is shining, and as far as I can see, it is only the Conservative party that will offer that at the next election.

Dan Jarvis: When the Prime Minister comes to Yorkshire, he might reflect on the promise he made to a Barnsley business to support efforts to secure a major international contract to manufacture solar panels. Billions of pounds of investment depend upon him keeping his word, but delays in Whitehall mean that the deal is now at risk. Will the Prime Minister do what he said he would do: intervene to make sure that we can bring hundreds of good, skilled jobs to this country?

David Cameron: I understand that UK Trade & Investment, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Foreign Office have all been providing advice and support to Solar Europa, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and have met with it on a number of occasions. We want to promote all projects that can create jobs in the UK and benefit relations with international partners. So I will look to see if there is anything that can be done in the Whitehall system that is getting in the way of this company, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Craig Whittaker: My constituent Mr Mohammed Naved Bashir was arrested in December. Despite pointing out on numerous occasions that he had a different name from that of the wanted man, he was held in prison cells in Halifax for three days. It was confirmed that the police had arrested the wrong person only when he was transported and presented to a judge in Glasgow. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to look into this case and perhaps supply the answers that Mr Bashir is not getting to the questions he is putting to the police?

David Cameron: This sounds like a very concerning case. My understanding is that West Yorkshire police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Mr Bashir. I cannot give the House the specifics of the case because it involves ongoing legal action, but I will discuss it with the Home Secretary as my hon. Friend asks. Of course, one option would be for Mr Bashir to make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but let me try to get my hon. Friend some more information about this.

Joan Walley: I know that the Prime Minister has followed closely the recent upheaval in the NHS in north Staffordshire, involving the Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent hospitals merger, the PET-CT scanner and the waiting times at accident and emergency. His Government commissioned KPMG to produce the Staffordshire “distressed economy” report, but it is being withheld. Will he now commit to publishing the full report so that we can all see his real plans for the NHS in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire?

David Cameron: I will look closely at the specific issue that the hon. Lady has raised. As she knows, the safety of patients in Staffordshire is absolutely our main priority. I know that the University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust is working hard with the trust development authority and the other parties involved to manage a safe and timely transition of services, and I think that all parties should work together to do that. I have to say that that is not helped by the Leader of the Opposition going to Stafford and deliberately scaremongering and trying to frighten local people. He has said that Stafford hospital is on “the road to closure”. This is what he means by “weaponising” the NHS. It is an absolutely disgraceful tactic. The hon. Lady knows it is not true, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it is not true but he hasn’t got the gumption to say so.

Margot James: I know that the Prime Minister shares the gratitude expressed on both sides of the House for the sacrifices made by our health care professionals and members of our armed forces, including my constituent, Lieutenant Marc White, who have risked their lives to help the people of Sierra Leone to combat the scourge of Ebola. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a way should be found to recognise their bravery?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that everyone would like me to put on record my praise for those incredibly brave people who have worked in very difficult conditions, including over Christmas. They include doctors and nurses from our NHS and people from our armed forces, our civil service and non-governmental organisations. They are helping to save thousands of lives in Africa and protecting the UK from the potentially disastrous consequences of the disease spreading. In recognition of the bravery of those from the UK, I intend to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the introduction of a new medal to pay tribute to their efforts. Details will be out in due course, and this should be in place by the summer. It is absolutely right to say that those people are incredibly brave and that we owe them an immense debt of gratitude.

Cathy Jamieson: Today’s “Green Budget” from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that median wages were still almost 5% lower last year than they were in 2008. Will the Prime Minister now admit that families across the country are indeed facing a cost of living crisis?

David Cameron: What the “Green Budget” today shows—I think we should take this as an important reference work—is that Labour would lead to an extra £170 billion of borrowing. That is the official figure.
	The shadow Chancellor was busy yesterday. In another of his interventions, he said on Radio 2 that “debt would be higher”. The cat is out of the bag. It is official: Labour would borrow, tax and spend more, and do all the things to put us back into the mess we got out of.

Charlie Elphicke: In recent weeks, Dover and east Kent have suffered gridlock due to problems at the port of Dover and the fire in the channel tunnel. Will the Prime Minister support the finding of a long-term solution to the problem? Will he consider making this a national strategic priority and using lorry levy funds to help to pay for it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this question, and I know how hard he works for people in Dover and across east Kent. I understand that he met with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) about this, and as a result we have ordered an urgent review to look at the contingency arrangements for the M20/A20 and for the M2/A2 in the event of severe disruption at Eurotunnel and the channel ports, taking account of the recent congestion. It is important that we learn the lessons from this incident, and if the report comes up with good suggestions, we will look at them very carefully.

Steve Rotheram: In 2010 the Prime Minister said that if he failed to deliver on his promises, voters should kick him out—his promise on pointless reorganisations of the NHS, his promise on immigration in the tens of thousands, his promise to wipe out the deficit in this Parliament. He has broken his contract with the British people. If he is a man of his word, there is a P45 with “Cameron” on it. He should take it, take that lot and go.

David Cameron: I can tell the hon. Gentleman the commitments that I made. I said we would turn the British economy round—we have turned the economy round. I said we would get the country back to work—there are 1.75 million more jobs. I said we would get the deficit down—it is down by a half. I said we would protect the NHS and we have protected the NHS. I said I would look after Britain’s pensioners—we kept our promise to pensioners. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the competition will be at the next election—competence and a long-term plan from the Government, chaos from Labour.

Graham Stuart: On Friday I visited the Cranswick pork facility in my constituency. It now employs 1,500 people at that site alone, hundreds more than in 2010. A lot of that investment came about because Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers opened up the Chinese market and have kept it open. Will the Prime Minister come and visit the facility, see the northern powerhouse in action, and see the effect of a long-term economic plan with exports at its heart?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. One of the largest and most important manufacturing sectors in Britain is the food sector. It is very competitive. We need to do more to promote exports and my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Secretary is doing just that. The Chinese market represents an enormous opportunity. A number of important trade missions have already been carried out there, but we are also pushing within Europe for a free trade agreement with China. Other countries, including New Zealand, have shown the massive amount of benefit that that can bring to their country, and Britain will always be at the forefront of arguing for these trade agreements.

Tom Blenkinsop: Does the Prime Minister know of anyone who owns or works for a UK- registered company that uses a Luxembourg-based holding company in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax in the UK?

David Cameron: I want to see more and more companies headquartered here in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. We inherited a situation where company after company was leaving our shores. Because we now have competitive tax rates and a business-friendly Government, more and more businesses are coming here, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Greg Mulholland: Last week six-year-old Sam Brown from my constituency, with 10-year-old Kamal from London, came to see the Prime Minister to deliver personal letters to him about the NHS England failure to come up with a process to allow the NHS to fund the drugs they need for Morquio syndrome, which also apply to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. NHS England is still dragging its heels. Will the Prime Minister, who I know has taken an interest in this, please intervene to come up with an interim solution so that all these children can get the drugs that they need?

David Cameron: I well remember meeting the hon. Gentleman and the young boy with Duchenne muscular dystrophy syndrome. I have looked into this. The consultation is under way and will finish at the end of April. Following this, the NHS will make a decision as quickly as possible whether or not to routinely fund Translarna. I have discussed this with the Health Secretary and we will do everything we can to help.

David Anderson: In 2010 the Government withdrew £80 million from five schools in my constituency. This destabilised the school in the village of Ryton so much that it is being forced against the will of all concerned to become an academy. The curriculum is constantly being cut, dedicated staff have lost their jobs and there is more of the same to come in the summer. What do I tell my constituent, Lauren White, who loves this school, when she has seen her chosen career disappear before her very eyes?

David Cameron: All the evidence is that schools that have converted to academy status have seen their standards improve at a faster rate than maintained schools. Is it not interesting that the party that started to promote academies has given up on that good reform, as well as the other reforms it has given up on? We have put extra money in for school places, we are seeing improvements in school standards and we have said that any schools that are either inadequate or require improvement will need to be taken over by an academy if they do not have a proper plan for improvement. All parents who want to see their children succeed at school will welcome that.

Mike Freer: My right hon. Friend has been admirably robust at combating anti-Semitism, and this Government have been generous in supporting security measures at state faith schools. However, 120 community buildings are now at risk of a terrorist attack of the type we saw in Paris. Will he commit to looking at creating a counter-terrorism fund to help maintain the security measures at these community buildings?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have met the Jewish Leadership Council and discussed this issue in the light of the Paris attacks. As he knows, the schools security grant, which we introduced, has made available £2.3 million of funding in the current year to protect security at Jewish schools, and it will be maintained next year. The Education Secretary is also going to meet the Community Security Trust to see whether we can do more to help Jewish independent schools. In my view, we need to do everything we can to help this community feel safe and secure in our country. I would hate it for British Jews not to feel that they have a home here in Britain—safe, secure and a vital part of our community.

Mark Durkan: It is now two years since a meningitis B vaccine was licensed for use across the EU. To achieve its effect of being able to prevent more than 80% of meningitis B cases here, it needs to be on the routine immunisation schedule for the NHS. The Prime Minister sounded hopeful in the House in November. Can he give us some indication as to when there will be a conclusion to the negotiations between the Government and Novartis?

David Cameron: I am afraid I cannot give any further update; the discussions are still under way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this would be a vital step forward, because of the horrors of this disease. But he also knows that there would be huge cost issues if we were to make sure that this was made available. So those discussions with the drug company are vital. They are ongoing, and if I can give him an update in a letter, I will do so.

Jesse Norman: The whole of Herefordshire is behind a transformative project to create a new university specialising in engineering and technology, and, in particular, the agri-technology, defence and security sectors. That is only possible because of the Government’s universities policy and their decision to lift the cap on student numbers. Will the Prime Minister look hard, with the Chancellor, at the potential to award some public capital funding to support this enormously worthwhile project?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to say that uncapping university numbers removes the cap on aspiration. We want to have a country where everyone can have the choice of an apprenticeship or a university place. He is right that some areas of our country, including Herefordshire, have been under-served by university provision, which is why we have got the extra £200 million available in the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—capital investment. I know he is discussing this with the Chancellor to see whether we could make available some of this funding for the scheme he talked about. Let me say how important it is that we maintain a long-term plan for funding our universities. Young people in Britain want to know that we have the best universities in Europe and that they will continue to be that way. That is why what the university vice-chancellors have said this week about how our plans are working and costed, and Labour plans are completely unworking and uncosted, is so important.

Grahame Morris: Last night, the Prime Minister was on television saying that he would crack down on firms that move abroad to avoid paying their tax. So my question is this: when the Government launched the taxpayer-backed national loan guarantee scheme in 2012, why did the Prime Minister decide to allow companies based offshore in tax havens to apply for this form of state aid?

David Cameron: The national loan guarantee scheme was run by the banks, and it was the banks that chose what companies to fund. Let me say this: we have done more than any previous Government to ensure that companies pay their taxes. We inherited a situation from Labour in which foreigners were not paying stamp duty, companies were leaving Britain, and we were giving knighthoods to bankers who had failed Britain. All of that has changed.

Anne Marie Morris: This week is the anniversary of the great storm that ripped up the railway line at Dawlish in my constituency. I thank the Prime Minister and Network Rail for their very fast action to restore the line. Will he confirm his ongoing commitment to the South West rail link and the future funding for it?

David Cameron: First, let me join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the orange army that did such a fantastic job at Dawlish in getting that line back on track in such a short period of time. As she knows, we have also committed a further £30 million towards resilience and protection this year, but, more importantly, we are working with the South West Peninsula rail task force to bring together all the strategic and local transport schemes. I am absolutely determined that the south-west will have strong connections—road, rail and air—with the rest of the country, and those connections are absolutely vital to our long-term plan.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
	As the House knows, the Government established this inquiry so that we could get to the bottom of whether important institutions—public sector bodies as well as non- state organisations—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
	In November, in my last statement to the House about the inquiry, I said that in appointing two chairmen who had failed to win the trust of survivors, we had got things wrong. I said, as we worked out how to move forward, that we would listen to survivors and their representatives, and that if we stay patient and work together we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to find out what has happened in the past and what is still happening now, and to stop it happening in the future.
	Since my last statement, I have held meetings with young survivors, adult survivors and groups that represent thousands of survivors in total. During those meetings, many people shared their experiences no matter how painful or how difficult it was to speak out. In doing so, the young survivors displayed immense courage, as did the older survivors who showed me how abuse that has taken place decades ago can feel like it took place yesterday, and how they have had to live with the consequences of that abuse for the whole of their adult lives. I am grateful to all of them.
	Throughout those meetings, for every person who told their story, there was one common goal: to save others from the abuse that they had suffered. So let me be clear: I am now more determined than ever to expose the people behind these despicable crimes; the people and institutions that knew about the abuse but did not act and that failed to help when it was their duty—sometimes their very purpose—to do so; and the people and institutions that, in some cases, positively covered up evidence of abuse.
	Other common themes emerged from those meetings and from the wider feedback that survivors have given me. Although there is no single point of view for the many thousands who have suffered—and that means that not every survivor will agree with everything that I announce today—there is a remarkable degree of consensus on what is needed for this inquiry as it goes about its important work.
	Survivors have been clear about the type of chairman who would command their confidence. They have said that they want to see powers of compulsion to make sure all witnesses give evidence, and that we need to revise the inquiry’s terms of reference. They have raised the importance of help and support as this inquiry triggers memories that cause great pain, and, finally, they have emphasised the importance of prosecuting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes where evidence emerges.
	I will turn first to the matter of the chairman. After my previous statement, the Home Office received more than 150 nominations from survivors, their representatives,
	MPs and members of the public. The Home Office also contacted Commonwealth countries, via the Foreign Office, to identify any suitable candidates. Each and every name was assessed against a set of criteria, incorporating the views of survivors on the most important factors. The criteria included: the appropriate skills to carry out this complex task; experience of the subject matter; and the absence of any direct links to any individual about whom people might have concerns, or any institution or organisation that might fall under the scope of the inquiry. A copy of the criteria will today be placed in the House Library and published in full on the gov.uk website.
	Following an initial sift, due diligence checks were carried out on all the remaining names, which included academics, social workers, people from the charitable sector and a significant number of judges and members of the legal profession. The list was narrowed down to a shortlist of those who matched the set of criteria and were most suited to taking on the undoubtedly challenging role. I then took the views of a small group of survivors, all members of larger groups, who represent more than 100,000 individual survivors.
	As the House will remember, during the debate on 22 January I said that I would reach my decision by the end of January and update the House shortly thereafter. Based on the clear feedback from survivors, and the assessment of the nominations against the agreed criteria, I can tell the House that I plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as the new chairman of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
	Justice Goddard is a judge of the High Court of New Zealand. She is a highly respected member of the judiciary who has been at the forefront of criminal law and procedure. As chairman of New Zealand’s Independent Police Conduct Authority, she conducted an inquiry into the policing of child abuse in New Zealand, and she is also a member of the United Nations sub-committee on prevention of torture. She will bring a wealth of expertise to the role of chairman and, crucially, will be as removed as possible from the organisations and institutions that might become the focus of the inquiry.
	I can confirm that I have discussed Justice Goddard’s appointment with the shadow Home Secretary, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her constructive comments and bipartisan approach. The House will also remember that I agreed with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that the nominated panel chairman would attend a pre-appointment hearing before the Home Affairs Committee, which will bring further transparency to the appointment process. I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee, has agreed that this will take place on 11 February. I have asked the Committee to publish its report as soon as possible.
	I will now turn to the form of the inquiry. As I told the Home Affairs Committee on 15 December, I am clear that the inquiry should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. I also said there were three ways to do that: first, by establishing a royal commission; secondly, by converting the current inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, subject to consultation with the chairman once appointed; or, thirdly, by setting up a new statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act.
	Having taken in-depth legal advice and discussed the options with survivors, I have concluded that a royal commission would not have the same robustness in law as a statutory inquiry. In particular, it would not have the same clarity over its powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. I have decided not to convert the current inquiry, because doing so would not address the concerns of survivors about the degree of transparency in the original appointments process. I have therefore decided upon the third option of establishing a new statutory inquiry with a panel.
	I want to make it clear that that is by no means a criticism of the current panel members, who were selected on the basis of their expertise and commitment to getting to the truth about child abuse in this country. The fact that the panel is being dissolved has nothing to do with their ability or integrity, and I want to place on the record my gratitude to them for the work they have done so far. I have asked the panel to produce a report on their work so far, which I am sure will provide valuable assistance to the incoming chairman.
	In order to make sure that the appointment of the new panel is as transparent as possible, I will publish in full the criteria by which each new member will be selected and place a copy in the House Library and on gov.uk. I hope that the original members and the expert adviser to the panel, Professor Alexis Jay, will put themselves forward to be considered against those criteria if they so wish. I can confirm that Ben Emmerson QC will remain as counsel to the inquiry. I will wish to discuss the make-up of the new panel with Justice Goddard, but I am clear that each member must have the right skills and expertise to do the job, satisfy the statutory requirements of impartiality, and command the confidence of survivors.
	So the process is being reset, and that means that I will also revisit the terms of reference. In accordance with the Inquiries Act, these will need to be discussed with Justice Goddard, but I want to assure survivors and the House that I have heard the strong call that the inquiry’s remit should go back further than the current time limit of 1970. There are, however, good reasons for confining the inquiry’s scope to England and Wales. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey are already under way, while the Scottish Government have announced their own inquiry into child abuse—but I shall discuss this with the new chairman. In the event that the geographical scope remains the same, I propose that a clear protocol is agreed to make sure that no information falls through the cracks and that no people or institutions escape scrutiny, censure or justice.
	I wish once more to reassure the House that the Official Secrets Act will not be a bar to giving evidence to this inquiry. I am clear that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of Government and access to all relevant information, including secret information where appropriate. I shall be writing to Secretaries of State to ask for their full co-operation, and I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to all Departments and agencies, and to public sector organisations, including local authorities, setting out the need for full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry.
	I should now like to turn to the important issue of support. Survivors have fought hard for this inquiry, and they have done so knowing the intense emotional toll it will take. Charities have already reported a huge increase in demand for their services as more and more people come forward, many for the first time. That is why, in December, I announced a £2 million fund available to non-statutory organisations that had seen an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child abuse inquiry. A further £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales was also announced. I am pleased to announce that these funds are now available and organisations can now bid for them. Going forward, further support will be needed for those who wish to give evidence to the inquiry and the many thousands of people who may be affected by its work. It is essential that these people are given the help they need, and I expect appropriate Government funding to be made available at the next spending review.
	The final issue survivors have raised with me is the need to do everything we can to ensure that the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are prosecuted wherever possible, and of course I share that aim. I can confirm that a co-ordinated national policing response will link directly into the inquiry and will be able to follow up any lead the inquiry uncovers that requires a policing response. This will be led by Simon Bailey, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigations as part of Operation Hydrant, which will co-ordinate all child abuse investigations concerning people of public prominence or those offences that took place in institutional settings. The Hydrant team will be responsible for the recording of all referrals from the inquiry that relate to potentially criminal abuse and failures to act. It will also oversee the quality of responses from police forces to any requests for information from the panel. It is also important that there is a central point of contact within the Crown Prosecution Service for any referrals resulting from the inquiry. I can confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has appointed her legal adviser, Neil Moore, to this vital role.
	There is one separate but related matter on which I promised to update the House. As part of the review that the Home Office commissioned of Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC last July, we asked a number of other Government Departments, as well as the Security Service and the police, to undertake a careful search of their records. Following reports in the press last month about a Cabinet Office file title listed in the national archives, the Cabinet Office has undertaken urgent work to establish why this file was not identified as part of its original search for the Wanless and Whittam review, and whether it was a duplicate of a file that was held at the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. This work has established that it was not an exact duplicate; the two files are different, but contain much of the same material. The Cabinet Office file has additional material that the Home Office file does not, and vice versa. Some of this additional Cabinet Office material falls within in the scope of the Wanless and Whittam review. My officials have since spoken to Peter Wanless and summarised the additional information it contains, and he has confirmed that it would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
	None the less, the file should have been identified when the Home Office first asked the Cabinet Office to conduct searches in connection with the Wanless and Whittam review. My right hon. Friend Minister for the Cabinet Office will today table a written ministerial statement explaining that as a result of the discovery of the file the Cabinet Office has undertaken additional searches of its papers and files. As a result, Cabinet Office officials have identified a small number of additional files that should also have been identified and passed to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam last summer. I have said that they must be shared with Wanless and Whittam immediately, with the Goddard inquiry and Hart inquiry, should they wish to see them, and with the police. My right hon. Friend has agreed.
	It is imperative that the whole Government co-operate fully with the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse and provide full access to any information that is requested. I have of course asked for these files, in common with all other relevant documents held by Government, to be made available to the inquiry so that it leaves no stone unturned in its bid to get the truth.
	That brings me to my final point. I have said before and I shall say again that what we have seen so far in Rotherham, Oxford, Greater Manchester and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will give a statement on Louise Casey’s report on Rotherham borough council, which will contain further evidence of its failure to protect vulnerable children. With every passing day and every new revelation, it is clear that the sexual abuse of children has taken place and is still taking place on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend.
	What we do know is that the authorities have in different ways let down too many children and adult survivors. In many cases, people in positions of authority have abused their power. Now, those of us in privileged positions of public service must show that we have listened, we have heard, we have learned and we will come together not to avoid difficult questions but to expose hard truths. Most importantly, we will keep in mind the people on whose behalf we seek justice, the survivors of these appalling crimes.
	On that note, I end by thanking survivors for their patience, their determination and their willingness to help us get this right. I commend the statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Savile, the BBC and the national health service, the north Wales care homes, Rochdale, the Elm guest house and too many others: too many institutions that failed to listen to children, failed to protect them, turned a blind eye while they were abused and, in some cases, even covered up awful crimes. Those who endured abuse need justice. They want the truth, they want answers about what will change for the future and they need support. We all want to know that abusers and criminals are being prosecuted and stopped, that children are being heard and kept safe and that the same mistakes are not being made over and over again. That is why the inquiry is so important, why it must work to get the truth and also why it must set out the reforms we need for the future. It is why we will support it and why we wish Justice Lowell Goddard well in getting it swiftly under way.
	It has now been 213 days since the Home Secretary first announced an inquiry and more than two years since we first called for it. It has now had three false starts under the first two chosen chairs, as well as the process of panel hearings that the Home Secretary launched in November and that she has now had to abandon.
	We cannot afford for the Home Secretary to fail on this again, so we need to be clear that the previous problems have been resolved. First, the two previous chairs went because the Home Office did not apply due diligence and the Home Secretary did not consult survivors. I welcome the fact that she has now met many groups of survivors. Will she assure us that there has been due diligence? I strongly welcome, too, the additional support for survivors and I hope that she will keep the level of support under review and talk to the Department of Health about the support that it will need to provide. How will she ensure that survivors have an ongoing voice in shaping the inquiry, perhaps learning the lessons from Northern Ireland and other countries?
	Secondly, the inquiry was repeatedly not put on a sustainable footing and concern was raised about its independence from the Home Office. Making the inquiry statutory is welcome and is something that we called for. Have the counsel to and staff of the inquiry been appointed by the Home Office or by the chair, and what will their relationship be with the Home Office?
	Thirdly, there has been considerable confusion over the role of the panel. Can she assure us that it will continue to include survivors and explain what its role will be? Is this a panel inquiry chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard or a judicial inquiry by Justice Goddard, advised by the panel?
	Fourthly, the scope and purpose of the inquiry has not previously been clear. I agree that it must consider the institutional failure and make recommendations for the future. I also agree that individual crimes must be investigated by the police, rather than the panel, and I strongly welcome the greater clarity she has announced today about how criminal investigations will be handled and co-ordinated by the police and prosecution. What about the continued question of whether there was a cover-up in Whitehall or Westminster of very serious crimes over many decades? Extremely serious allegations have been made, but they have not been investigated.
	Today, the Home Secretary has had to tell the House that more files were missing from the Wanless review, including files on briefings to the Prime Minister of the day, which came to light only when something was discovered by accident in the National Archives. Have the Foreign Office, MI6, Downing street and other Departments now been asked to look at their files, and why was that not done before, when the Wanless review started?
	The Home Secretary will know, too, that no one has looked more widely at allegations that have been made about cover-ups or decisions not to investigate or prosecute in that period. Will she clarify whether she expects the Goddard inquiry to look in detail at those allegations and whether it will have the investigative capacity to do so? For example, will it be able to look at top-secret information held by the security agencies? If that is not its purpose, who will pursue that investigation? It is clear that people will expect us to get the truth of what happened within Government.
	Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and social services have the resources to deal with these serious cases right now? The current police investigations are immensely important and she will know that there are grave allegations in the papers only today that must be pursued. The police must have the ability to pursue serious investigations wherever they lead, but forces have said that they are struggling to cope with the cases that are now rightly coming forward, both current and past cases, particularly given the scale of officer cuts that they have experienced. We know that there are long and dangerous delays, too, in the National Crime Agency in dealing with online abuse. The Home Secretary rightly talked about her renewed determination to tackle the problem, and this is the area in which we need to act urgently. What is she doing to respond to the extremely serious concerns that police forces and social services still lack both the capacity and the policies to investigate and keep children safe today?
	For too long, this appalling crime has been ignored. Children who called for help were not heard and too many of them are still not being listened to. I know that the whole House will want the inquiry to work, to be thorough and effective and to support the announcements that the Home Secretary made today.
	The Home Secretary concluded by asking for patience, but she will know better than anyone that the inquiry has gone wrong too many times already and that we still need assurance that the measures will be in place to protect children today. She will know that patience is running out and that we need action to support child protection now and to get this inquiry finally and properly under way so that it can get to the truth and provide the justice and reforms we need to keep all our children safe. The whole House will unite behind ensuring that that can happen.

Theresa May: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her commitment to the inquiry. One of the issues raised with me by survivors is that they want to be certain there is cross-party support for the inquiry so they can be confident that it will continue. From what she has said, I think we can give a very clear message that the whole House is of one accord in saying that the inquiry should be able to do what we all want—to get to the truth.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the panel hearings. She said that I had set up the listening events. Of course, I did not set them up; they were set up by the independent inquiry panel. The panel decided to stop them in the middle of January, partly in expectation that a decision would be made about how the inquiry was being taken forward. I have been very clear that I have asked the panel to report on the work it has done so far. That will ensure that nothing undertaken by the original inquiry is lost in the process, and that its work can be taken forward, as appropriate, to the new panel inquiry.
	I assure the right hon. Lady that greater due diligence has taken place in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, including lengthy interviews with the individual concerned. On the role and ongoing voice of survivors, I have been very clear that it is important for the panel inquiry to be informed by survivors. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will therefore be an important part of the panel inquiry.
	The right hon. Lady asked about advisers to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the possibility of individuals being advisers—or assessors, as they are called—to a panel. I will explore with Justice Goddard how we can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is truly heard in the inquiry’s work.
	The inquiry will be an inquiry panel, with Justice Goddard as its chairman. Appointments of staff to the inquiry will be undertaken in consultation with Justice Goddard. The staff—the secretariat—are and will be independent of the Home Office.
	The right hon. Lady referred to the issues around the cover-up in Whitehall and Westminster. I have been clear about the files, and we will renew our efforts to ensure that proper searches are undertaken across Government. When I last made a statement to the House, I was very clear that I could not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there has been no cover-up. One of the things that the inquiry will look at, and which I expect it to be able to unearth, is whether there was a cover-up in the past. That is important for us all, but particularly for survivors and those involved in the acts that might have been subject to such a cover-up.
	Another of the issues relates to investigative capacity. The formal process is that I will discuss the make-up of the panel with Justice Goddard. We have already had some discussions about the investigative experience of panel members to make sure that they can do what is necessary in their work. As I said in my statement, we have clearly told the Security Service and the police that information they have relevant to the inquiry should be brought forward to it.
	At one stage the right hon. Lady said that the police do not have the policies to investigate. I have to say to her that the police do have the policies and powers to investigate. One of the issues in the recent Rotherham case, sadly, was that the police had the ability to investigate, but—I am afraid because of what I have already described as dereliction of duty—they did not investigate. We must deal with that attitude as much as anything else. That is why we are working with the national policing lead to put in extra support for investigations across the country to make sure that such investigations can go where they need to go and can identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

Tim Loughton: May I commend the Home Secretary on her announcement? There can be doubt of the integrity and thoroughness of the approach she has announced. I am sure that, even now, people are searching for unsuitable links to Justice Goddard. Does she agree that, realistically, this is the last chance saloon for this essential inquiry? It is essential for everyone to row in behind the inquiry, which will need robust support. Justice Goddard will need robust support from the Home Secretary, the Government and the Opposition, and everyone who wants to get to the bottom of the truth in this sordid matter.

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him and a number of other MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is not in the Chamber—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	He is in a different place from normal. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have all been particularly active in dealing with this issue, and I commend them on their work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is absolutely right. My intention, hope and expectation is that the inquiry will now be able to get up and running, and to undertake the work it needs to do to bring truth and justice to the people who, sadly, have suffered from these terrible crimes. As I said in my statement, what I am announcing today will not be supported 100% by everybody. I hope, however, that everybody accepts that we need to get the inquiry under way, and that we need to support those involved—Justice Goddard and the panel members, when they are selected—to ensure that they can do the job we all want them to do.

David Winnick: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the chair, since I will be at the pre-appointment hearing next Tuesday. May I say to the Home Secretary that although the inquiry—I hope it will get under way very shortly—should obviously be as thorough as possible, it should not go on endlessly for years and become another Chilcot? The people who have suffered so much, about whom the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary spoke very eloquently, deserve a conclusion. That is why it is so essential for the inquiry to come to a conclusion well within, say, 12 months.

Theresa May: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the inquiry coming to a conclusion well within 12 months. I think that it will take longer than 12 months, but, as he said, it is important that it does not go on endlessly, seemingly being pushed ever and ever further into the future, with no report. This will of course be for the chairman of the inquiry to determine, but my own view is that it would be helpful to set a date by which a report will be made, even if at that point the inquiry says that it needs to do further work in certain areas. People need to see that there will be a report. Indeed, the inquiry will need to consider how to keep people updated on an ongoing basis during its work so that they do not feel that it is just going on behind closed doors.

John Hemming: I have documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Foreign Office recently turned a blind eye to child abuse in St Helena. We are also aware of the recent banning of the American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from investigating child abuse in Jersey. In both cases, that was done by UK Government authorities in recent years; I am not arguing that Ministers were involved. Are those cases within the inquiry’s terms of reference?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on the abuse that may have taken place in both those geographical areas. I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him. Work is of course already being done in relation to Jersey. It would not be appropriate for this inquiry to look at Jersey and St Helena. As I have said, I expect the inquiry to confine itself to England and Wales. I will of course need to discuss that with the chairman, but that is my expectation.

Barry Sheerman: The Home Secretary will know of my interest in this matter, because of my 10 years as Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. May I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)? If this is seen as being kicked into the long grass, a lot of people will be very disappointed.
	A major inquiry such as this one has to be based on good policing, for which resources must be provided, as well as good quality research. Some of the evidence from Operation Pallial is causing us to worry about that. I want every person guilty of child abuse to be prosecuted and punished, but such inquiries always include false allegations of abuse that destroy people’s lives, often because such people are put on bail and never charged. In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, I saw the lives of social workers, teachers and head teachers destroyed by false allegations. Can we get the balance right in how the criminal justice system works?

Theresa May: It is obviously important that we get the balance right. I am very clear that it is not for the inquiry to investigate individual allegations that could lead to criminal charges being brought. Those are matters for the police. I have indicated that under Operation Hydrant, arrangements will be put in place to look at the quality of the response of police forces across the country to ensure that nobody falls between the various stools of the different inquiries.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about people who find themselves on bail, but who are not charged. The Government intend to deal with that issue through the changes that we have proposed. We are looking at a limit for bail, except in exceptional circumstances, because I recognise the concern for people who are put on bail for many months, but who are not charged. That is the case across a range of crimes and is not confined to child sexual abuse. Such people can be in limbo for a considerable time. That is why the Government are looking at the whole question of how long bail should last.

Cheryl Gillan: Many people will warmly welcome the progress that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today. I commend her for the listening process that she undertook before the announcement. My constituent Tom Perry, who has spoken out bravely, met her and came to my surgery last week to give me positive feedback about the meeting.
	As the Home Secretary knows, I have raised before the matter of resources for organisations that provide support to the survivors of abuse. I would like to know that, despite the announcement today, she will keep those resources under review, so that if the £4.8 million that has been announced is not enough, more funds will be available.

Theresa May: I know that my right hon. Friend has taken an interest in this issue. I was pleased to meet her constituent, which I have done on more than one occasion. On resources, we are looking ahead to a new spending review. As I said in my statement, I will work with ministerial colleagues across Government to look at the various aspects of this business, including the support that is needed for victims and survivors, and not just at the aspects that relate to the Home Office. We will take that forward into the comprehensive spending review to ensure that funding is available to provide what is necessary for those who will be affected by the very fact of the inquiry and by coming forward. There will be many people for whom the inquiry will raise difficult memories, and support needs to be available.

Caroline Lucas: I particularly welcome the statutory nature of the inquiry. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about whether there will be a senior police assessor or adviser who can act as a liaison between the ongoing police investigations and the inquiry to ensure that one is not allowed to frustrate the other?
	The Home Secretary and all hon. Members have used repeatedly the word “survivor”, which is wonderful. May I make a quick plea to the press and the media who are following this debate and this issue to use the word “survivor” and not the word “victim”, because every time they use that word, it adds to the hurt and the disrespect?

Theresa May: On the first point that the hon. Lady raised, as I said in answer to another question, we will have to look at the investigative capacity that needs to be available to the inquiry panel, but under Operation Hydrant, Chief Constable Simon Bailey will work to ensure that there are appropriate links between the inquiry and the police investigations. What is important is that nothing falls between the various exercises and that information is shared appropriately between the investigations and the inquiry panel.
	On the second point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about language. It is important that we use the language of survivors or, in some cases, of victims and survivors. There is another element in respect of language. Sometimes people refer to “historic” cases of child abuse. Many of these cases took place in the past, but for those who suffered them, they are not historic—they live with them every single day. I say to the House and to all outside who comment on this matter that we should be very careful about the language we use. We should not use inappropriate terms that are hurtful and that could cause harm to individuals.

Bill Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arriving at the right solution to the heinous, dangerous and difficult situation that she has been faced with. May I say on behalf of those of us who campaigned for a 2005 Act inquiry to be applied to this matter because of our experience of other 2005 Act inquiries that she has done exactly the right thing? May I also say what a good move it is to ensure that Ben Emmerson stays as counsel to the inquiry? This is a tremendous move in the right direction and I am certain that my right hon. Friend is completely right.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We received a very clear message that the inquiry needed statutory powers, which is why I have brought them forward. It is important that the inquiry is able to compel people to give evidence and that appropriate sanctions are in place in relation to that. I thank him for his comments, given his experience in this area.

David Lammy: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. Very sadly, a constituent of mine was horribly abused throughout his teenage years at Highgate Wood school in the London borough of Haringey. That led to a conviction last summer. There are suggestions that there were other examples of abuse at that school and in the London borough of Haringey. Will that matter fall within the scope of the inquiry?

Theresa May: The inquiry will look at abuse that has taken place in state institutions and non-state institutions. It will look at why it was possible for that abuse to take place. Those who are in authority in a school have a duty to protect the children and not to abuse them. The inquiry will look at whether the duty of care was exercised properly by people in those institutions, and at what lessons we need to learn to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the future.

Paul Beresford: Mr Speaker will not be surprised to hear that my position as an ethnic minority immigrant from New Zealand adds to my support for the statement. One thing that I have noticed in New Zealand is that it suffers from “tall poppy syndrome”. That came through at the last election in New Zealand, when very unpleasant, anonymous accusations were made. I suspect that someone with the standing and career of Justice Goddard will have been the subject of such false and probably anonymous accusations. If my right hon. Friend is aware of any such accusations, can she kill them dead now?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the appointment of a New Zealand judge. It became apparent during the due diligence process that there is a blog with an accusation against Justice Lowell Goddard relating to a potential cover-up. I have spoken to her and to New Zealand’s Attorney-General about it, and I have been assured that there is absolutely no truth to the allegation. That information was shared with a number of survivors and they were comfortable with the explanation that was given. I am clear not only that Justice Goddard has the necessary experience in this area, but, crucially, that her track record shows—for example, in the work that she did to look at police conduct in these matters—that she is willing to go where the evidence takes her, without fear or favour.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Home Secretary for the discussion so far. I welcome the widening and deepening of the inquiry, and the renewal of the drive to “expose hard truths”, as she rightly put it. Indeed, some very disturbing truths can be expected.
	I welcome the fact that the remit will go back further, but I worry about its not being extended beyond England and Wales, because that might not be enough. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland is doing some very good work. However, we have a place called Kincora, which has been a running sore for 40 years. Although some of what is said may be rumour, there are deep suspicions that the security services, the Official Secrets Act and all sorts of things were used to cover up some very nasty practices in that place. Indeed, there are suggestions that it was used to compromise loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles in the ’70s and early ’80s. I plead with the Home Secretary to include the Kincora situation, because the outworkings of Kincora extend beyond the shores of Northern Ireland and involve key organisations and parts of the state.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the inquiry, and I have considered whether it should cover Kincora. I came to the view that it is appropriate for that issue to be considered by the Hart inquiry, and that process is up and running. We must ensure that clear protocols are in place so that any information or evidence that comes forward that links the two inquiries or relates to people across them both can be shared properly, and so that full and proper consideration is given to those issues. As I said earlier, all parts of the government, including the Security Service, should make available any information that they hold that is relevant to either the Goddard inquiry or to the Hart inquiry into Kincora.

Michael Ellis: I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement. Justice Lowell Goddard is an inspired appointment in the best traditions of Commonwealth appointments to major inquiries in this country, so there is historical precedence for that. Some survivors groups have brought up the issue of a royal commission with the power to compel witnesses. Will the panel that the Home Secretary is setting up have that power?

Theresa May: The panel is not being set up under a royal commission, although we did consider that and a number of people pointed to the Australian experience. A royal commission can be similar to a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, but in some aspects it does not have quite the same legal certainty. That is why I decided to go down the route of a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, and the chairman of the panel will have power to compel witnesses—it is clear that everybody feels that that power is necessary for the inquiry to be conducted properly.

Ann Clwyd: The Home Secretary and I have corresponded on this issue, and I raised it in November in the Chamber although I am still not clear about the answer. In Wales, the Wales Office and North Wales police were suspected of a cover-up. I know that documents went missing in north Wales; there were statements and letters and so on, and we still do not have answers on where those are and who is looking into that. Will the Home Secretary assure me and the people of Wales that somebody in this inquiry will consider what went on in Wales at that time?

Theresa May: The inquiry will cover Wales as well as England, and it will be for the chairman and the panel to determine what issues they wish to consider. I expect that any evidence held by Members of the House, or others, or suggestions for issues that need to be considered by the inquiry, should be forwarded to the inquiry secretariat so that they can be properly considered by the chairman and the panel. It is possible to bring about a prosecution, as we saw in Operation Pallial and as a result of work done by the National Crime Agency when looking into issues in north Wales. The issues in Wales will certainly be covered.

Tessa Munt: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her determination to see a statutory inquiry set up, as well as her plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard and her recognition of the advantages of having such a chair—Justice Goddard is a judge and has a background in inquiring into child abuse, human rights and police complaints. Will the Home Secretary consult the chair—if the appointment is cleared—about how we can strengthen the powers, sanctions and directions issued by the Independent Police Complaints Commission? It is not good enough that our police and the directorate of professional standards can blatantly disregard the IPCC’s rulings and recommendations, and for our police to consider themselves a law unto themselves.

Theresa May: The Government have made a number of changes to the IPCC which mean that fewer investigations of a serious nature will be carried out by the police. Serious and sensitive complaints against the police will be dealt with by the IPCC, and we are looking more generally at the complaints system and disciplinary system within the police. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am certainly willing to refer it to the chair of the inquiry for consideration.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for confirming that the Hart inquiry will take place in Northern Ireland. Will that inquiry have the power to request those living on the UK mainland to attend it? If it is discovered that those involved in the inquiries have been in both Belfast and London, will evidence be exchanged between those inquiries?

Theresa May: It is certainly the intention to establish protocols between the inquiries so that evidence can be exchanged between them where appropriate, and evidence held on the mainland that is relevant to the Hart inquiry should be made available to that inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific point about the powers of the Hart inquiry in relation to individuals resident on the mainland, and if I may I will check the answer and write to him to ensure that I give him an accurate reply.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her commitment to getting this right, particularly in committing to support for survivors. She is right to identify the emotional toll that the inquiry will take. When survivors gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee they were worried that financial barriers would prevent some people from giving evidence. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that child abuse survivors and organisations that help and support them will get the financial support they need to ensure that they are not excluded from giving evidence to the inquiry?

Theresa May: I can give my hon. Friend a degree of assurance about that. As I said, we are making money available to groups that support survivors who are affected by the child abuse inquiry, especially when the number of requests and calls on their time and resources have increased significantly as a result of the announcement of the inquiry. The inquiry panel and chairman will need to consider how to ensure that arrangements are in place, so that those who wish to give evidence are able to do so and do not feel that there is a barrier to that.

Louise Ellman: Will thought be given to setting up a system where there is ongoing communication between survivors and the inquiry, so that the survivors maintain their confidence in the inquiry and its processes?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises an important point. In a sense, this inquiry is like no other before it in terms of the subject matter it is dealing with, and it must obviously maintain the confidence of survivors. Information and communication will be an important issue for the inquiry panel, and I certainly intend that to be addressed by the chairman at an early stage.

Zac Goldsmith: I thank the Home Secretary for her obvious commitment to getting this inquiry right. People are concerned that there has not been enough co-ordination between the different police investigations around the country—that comes up time and again. In her statement she mentioned Simon Bailey’s work in charge of Operation Hydrant. As she said, his job is to follow up any lead that the inquiry uncovers, and to be responsible for recording all referrals from the inquiry that relate to criminal abuse. Will she reassure the House that Simon Bailey’s job will involve ensuring proper co-ordination between those inquiries, and that there is not just a liaison with the inquiry but between the various police outfits that are already up and running?

Theresa May: I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. At an earlier stage, Chief Constable Simon Bailey raised with me his concern to ensure that investigations are properly joined up between police forces, and that information that might be helpful to an investigation in one force is not held by another force and not passed on. Part of his work in Operation Hydrant will be to co-ordinate all child sexual abuse investigations that concern people of public prominence or institutional settings, and he will also consider the responses from police forces to the inquiry to ensure that they are of suitable quality.

Naomi Long: I welcome the statement and hope it represents a fresh start for victims, whose confidence has been badly shaken in recent months. In particular, I welcome the reassurances given on the Official Secrets Act and the Secretary of State’s letter confirming that those reassurances will also apply to people giving evidence to the Hart inquiry. She is aware of my concerns about Kincora and the allegations that MI5 was involved in a cover-up. When she says she will discuss the inquiry’s jurisdictional limits with the new chairman, can she assure us that she will do so with an open mind? Can she also assure us that those who wish to give evidence who are covered by the Official Secrets Act and require documentation to support their evidence will, along with the inquiry itself, have access to that documentation?

Theresa May: There are arrangements in place to enable former Crown servants to give evidence to such inquiries, notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act. I have been clear with the House about my own view regarding the geographical extent, but of course the chairman will look at this with a fresh mind, so the matter will be discussed with her. I should point out, however, that the Hart inquiry is up and running and that the powers and jurisdictions of the two inquiries—in terms of lessons learned and recommendations—are different.

Matthew Offord: I welcome the statement and action taken by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that few crimes are as repugnant as sexual abuse. However, just as we have a responsibility towards victims, so we have a responsibility towards those accused of involvement. Since the process began, there have been two unfounded claims against people, and I have a constituent whose life has been personally and financially ruined because of an unfounded accusation. Will we ensure not only that the guilty are brought to justice but that innocent people named in the inquiry do not experience the same problems as many of the survivors?

Theresa May: It is important that when allegations are made about individuals, they are properly investigated and clarified; that where appropriate, charges and prosecutions are brought; and that it is made clear where individuals named are found not guilty. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point that great care must be taken in dealing with allegations, and we are at pains to put in place appropriate processes, in relation to the inquiry and the police, to ensure that proper investigations take place.

Steve McCabe: I hope that this proves a fresh start and leads to a satisfactory outcome. What restrictions, if any, will be applied to members of the now dissolved panel talking about their experiences or sharing information obtained through being panel members?

Theresa May: The panel members were subject to a confidentiality agreement when they signed up. I am conscious that in the listening events they held, some people will have given very personal information and, as was pointed out, some of them might not wish that information to go forward to the new inquiry—which is what I have asked the panel to do for the report. We will work with survivors and others to ensure that if anybody has those concerns, their information will not go forward to the new panel.

Angela Watkinson: The secrecy that surrounds child sexual abuse makes it particularly difficult to investigate and prosecute. Does the Home Secretary agree that members of the public could have an important role to play—not just those with personal or direct involvement, but those who might have information—and that such people should come forward to say what they have seen or what they know, to add to the body of evidence and enable this investigation to succeed?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We tend to talk about survivors coming forward to give evidence, but there might be people who are aware of things that took place who are not themselves survivors but who might have seen things happening, perhaps in a children’s home or some other setting. I would encourage all such people to come forward to give evidence, because it will be valuable to the inquiry.

Ronnie Campbell: Will the inquiry look into all inquiries, including Operation Rose in Northumberland, which has become known as a big whitewash?

Theresa May: As I have indicated, the inquiry will have significant historical reach and will consider all the evidence it needs to move forward. I would expect it to look at previous inquiries to ascertain what happened and what lessons need to be learned.

Duncan Hames: I commend the Home Secretary for taking up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) some months ago of looking to the Commonwealth for an unquestionably independent chair. In particular, I commend the Home Secretary for the close co-ordination she has outlined between the inquiry and Operation Hydrant.
	It has been a difficult journey since the Home Secretary first agreed to hold this inquiry. What lessons has she learned for the benefit of other Ministers needing to commission an inquiry?

Theresa May: I have learned the importance of listening to survivors. In the past, these sorts of inquiries often involved authorities doing something to people—if you like—and making the decisions. With this inquiry, we are seeing the importance of victims and survivors being part of the process. It is important that their voices be heard by, and can input into, the inquiry. It should not just be authorities deciding what happens; those with experience of the issue should be taken along and given a voice, so that their feelings and expertise can be considered.

Ian Lucas: Following on from that last question, last July, the Home Secretary made the decision to set up a non-statutory panel inquiry. Today, she is setting up a statutory inquiry. Why did she make the wrong decision last July?

Theresa May: I have said to the House before that I took the decision to set up the inquiry in the way I did last July because of the very good experience of the Hillsborough panel inquiry, which had done an excellent job and came forward with a hard-hitting report, leading to further action and now inquests into the events at Hillsborough. It was a good model that those involved felt had allowed all the evidence to be taken and appropriate recommendations to be made. In the light of all the discussions and concerns, however, people have said that the inquiry should have statutory powers, and so I took this decision. I could have stood here and carried on with the previous panel inquiry, but I was willing to say, “No, it was wrong to do it that way. I am willing to start again.” That was the right thing to do. I hope all Members agree.

Peter Bone: I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House. She has shown us the great courtesy of keeping the House regularly informed on this matter. The difference between an average Minister and a great Minister is that when a great Minister gets something wrong, they correct their mistake, and that is what she has done.
	What will happen if a witness is compelled to give evidence but tries to use the defence that they cannot disclose the information because it would break the Official Secrets Act? What is the situation then?

Theresa May: There are arrangements in place for authorities to enable people to give evidence, notwithstanding that it would break the Official Secrets Act. This issue is regularly raised, however, and I will ensure that the strongest possible arrangements are in place to ensure it can happen.

Julian Smith: I welcome the statement and the foundations the Home Secretary has laid for the review. One local issue in north Yorkshire concerns the number of responsible bodies. I have spoken to victims, and they have a problem with the lack of co-ordination and the lack of training of the people dealing with the issue. In looking at funding and money, will she consider what help she can give to local organisations to work better and closer and in a more co-ordinated manner on child abuse and child exploitation?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises another important issue about how we deal with incidents currently taking place. I have been considering this matter along with a number of my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We have focused particularly on looking at what we can do in response to the Alexis Jay report on Rotherham, and my right hon. Friend is of course about to make his own statement on the Louise Casey inspection. The Government will come forward with a number of proposals that will hit at the very issues my hon. Friend has raised. He is right that we need to look at issues around training and co-ordination in respect of bodies looking at incidents, or potential incidents, of child sexual abuse today.

Justin Tomlinson: I very much welcome this measured statement. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there will be absolutely no hiding place—regardless of time, status or influence—for those involved in these abhorrent acts?

Theresa May: I am very clear that this inquiry should go where the evidence takes it and that there should be no hiding place for anybody. We should be very clear that the aim of this inquiry is to get to the truth—to find out what happened, but crucially also to learn the lessons to make sure that this cannot happen again.

Stephen Mosley: I, too, welcome the statement. What financial resources will be available to the panel inquiry? Will it have the finances it needs to allow the inquiry to go where it takes it, or will it face any constraints?

Theresa May: I am very clear that the Government, having set up the inquiry, will be responsible for ensuring that it has the resources it needs to be able to do the work we all want it to do. That is what we will be doing.

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Eric Pickles: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Rotherham council.
	Last August, Professor Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham described how vulnerable children have been repeatedly failed by a council paralysed by complacency, institutionalised political correctness and blatant failures of political and officer leadership.
	With such serious documented failures, I told the House last September that it was clearly in the public interest to order a statutory inspection of Rotherham council. I appointed Louise Casey to undertake a formal best-value inspection of the council. Today, her inspection report has been laid before the House and published. I would like to thank Louise Casey and her inspection team for their hard work in producing this thorough report.
	This report presents a disturbing picture of a council failing in its duty to protect vulnerable children and young people from harm. It reveals the council’s failure, both past and present, to accept, understand or combat the crimes of child sexual exploitation. It concludes that this culture of denial is intrinsic and has resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action taken against known perpetrators.
	The report also confirms a complete failure of political and officer leadership in Rotherham. Let me outline some of the report’s conclusions. Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council. There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness that has cemented the council’s failures. Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or of upsetting community cohesion. The council is currently incapable of tackling its weakness without substantial intervention.
	The council lacks political leadership. It is also directionless, and it is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be or how it will get there. It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members properly to represent the interests of local people. Some councillors have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or to their positions of responsibility. For example, the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.
	Management is ineffective; there is no coherent senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive. There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around. There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in children’s services. Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and do not get translated into change.
	In short, the report concludes that Rotherham council has failed its citizens, is failing to comply with the statutory best-value duty and it needs a fresh start. As a consequence of this conclusion, and in terms of statute, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best-value duty. It is failing in its duty to deliver quality local services for all and value for money to local taxpayers. I therefore need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am today writing to the council to ask if it wishes to make representations both on Louise Casey’s report and on the intervention package I am proposing.
	My proposals are designed to give the council the new start it needs, and to put an immediate end to the council’s ongoing service and governance failings. To provide that new start, I am seeking to make an order under the Local Government Act 2000 to move Rotherham council to holding all-out elections in 2016 and every fourth year thereafter. The 2016 elections will be an opportunity for the people of Rotherham to renew the membership of their council, and to elect those in whom they can have confidence.
	In the immediate term, I am minded to appoint commissioners who will provide new leadership, taking over the roles of the current wholly dysfunctional cabinet. I propose that these commissioners will initially exercise all the functions currently exercised by the cabinet—namely all the council’s executive functions. Their responsibilities will thus include children and young people’s services and adult social care. I propose that the commissioners will exercise other functions of the council where there can be no confidence in the present council’s ability to act responsibly.
	Louise Casey’s report uncovered serious weaknesses in the council’s taxi licensing. Sufficient steps to ensure that only fit and proper persons are permitted to hold a taxi licence were not, and are not being, undertaken. There can be no confidence in the council’s licensing committee. I am minded that the commissioners should take control of all the council’s licensing functions. I also propose that the commissioners should have the functions of appointing the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer, and of nominating members to other bodies. I expect them, in exercising all their responsibilities, to have appropriate regard to any views that the council’s members may have on these matters.
	It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham—particularly some of the most vulnerable in the borough—that I propose to take the wholly exceptional step of putting all those responsibilities, for a time, in the hands of commissioners who will be appointed by and accountable to me. My aim will be to return the responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible. From day one, the commissioners will have the role of considering and reporting to me what functions can be rolled back to the council, but only when they are confident that the functions will be exercised properly. I propose that, at the end of every quarter, they should review and report to me on what functions can be rolled back to ensure that there is a phased roll-back of functions throughout the intervention. My hope and expectation is that the roll-back can begin soon, and that after the 2016 elections major services can be returned, with the council resuming full responsibility for its range of services within four years.
	As well as having the role of exercising the council’s functions, the commissioners will oversee and drive forward the service and governance improvements that the council will be required to undertake in order to comply with the statutory best-value duty. I propose to appoint a team of five commissioners who will exercise those functions jointly and severally. The team will consist of a lead commissioner to give overall leadership and direction to the intervention; a commissioner with a “managing director” role to lead the oversight of overall service and governance improvement, driving performance; a children’s commissioner, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who will be responsible for driving improvements in children’s services; and two further commissioners to support the work of the commission. I also propose to end taxpayer-funded reward for failure by requiring the council to stop special responsibility allowances for cabinet members without functions while commissioners are in post.
	The council now has 14 days in which to make representations to me on the report and on my proposed intervention package. I will then carefully consider any representations that are made, and decide how to proceed. If I decide to intervene along these lines, I will make the necessary statutory directions under the Local Government Act 1999, and will appoint commissioners. I will also make the order under the 2000 Act. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to my making further directions if required. I will update the House on my conclusions in due course.
	It is with a heavy heart that I am having to resort to such central intervention. The coalition Government are committed to strengthening local democracy and local accountability, but the voice of the victims must be clearly heard. The crimes committed against children are so appalling, and the council’s remedy is so utterly inadequate, that the Government cannot, in good conscience, turn a blind eye. The exceptional circumstances justify the intervention of Whitehall so that we can make the council address its failings and prevent what has happened from ever happening again. I believe that the public, in Rotherham and throughout the country, would expect nothing less.
	The intervention package that I am proposing is broad and wide-ranging, and can be justified only in the most exceptional case. Rotherham is, I believe, such a case—a truly rare case, in which the children of Rotherham have been so badly let down by those who were elected to serve them. Councils throughout England have, on the whole, a good record of service, and are looking after their local communities. They are the heart of localism. That is something to protect and to cherish. The purpose of the action that I have proposed today is to restore good local governance to Rotherham, so that people can have confidence in their council again, and can take great pride in their borough.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the way in which he has handled this difficult matter. I also add my thanks to Louise Casey and her inspection team for the work that they have done.
	Last September, the Jay report exposed the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. Today, once again, our thoughts are with the victims and the horror to which they were subjected. The report provided evidence that the council, together with other public bodies, had failed in its duty to protect Rotherham’s children. It was therefore right for the Secretary of State to establish the inquiry that has reported today.
	Louise Casey’s report is, frankly, damning. It reveals very serious institutional failings, continuing denial of the problem, a damaging culture of sexism, bullying and discomfort about race, a failure to address past weaknesses, a greater interest in protecting the council’s reputation than, apparently, in protecting children, a lack of scrutiny and failure to challenge other agencies, and ineffective leadership. If we are to move forward, everyone involved must accept the truth. It is clear that the council has not yet done so, and, as a result, does not currently have the capacity to heal itself. I agree with the Secretary of State that a fresh start is needed, and I therefore welcome the statement that has been issued by Rotherham council’s cabinet in the last few minutes. It reads as follows:
	“As a cabinet…we must take responsibility. We therefore announce our intention to resign our positions as soon as transitional arrangements can be put in place.”
	In the light of that, I support the course of action that the Secretary of State has just announced, and, in particular, the sending in of commissioners to take over the functions of the cabinet. As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, it is a serious step to take, but the circumstances clearly warrant it, and I welcome the assurance he has given that his aim is to return responsibility to local democratic control when it is right to do so.
	I have a number of questions to ask. When does the Secretary of State expect to be in a position to announce the names of the five commissioners, especially given the announcement that has just been made by Rotherham council about the current cabinet? What background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone when making the appointments? What progress reports will he and the House receive on the work that the commissioners undertake? What discussions has he had with the Education Secretary about Ofsted and its role in inspecting Rotherham, given the concerns expressed by the Communities and Local Government Committee?
	When he commissioned the report, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had asked Louise Casey—in addition to her inspection of the council—to explore the links between Rotherham, the police and the justice system. Can he update the House on that part of her work, and when can we expect to see her findings, given that there will undoubtedly be lessons on which all local authorities should act? Sadly, as we know, the problems of child sexual exploitation are not confined to Rotherham.
	The people of Rotherham—and all of us—remain angry, above all, with the perpetrators of the shocking abuse that took place over decades, and we are united in our determination both to see justice done and to act to prevent this from ever happening again. In doing so, we must also remain united in the face of those who will seek to use what has happened in Rotherham to divide the community.
	Local authorities have great responsibilities, which they have a duty to exercise on behalf of the people they represent. When it comes to our children, there is no greater responsibility than to make sure that they are safe and protected. That this did not happen here is unforgivable, but our joint task now is to work with the commissioners, the council, other public bodies and the people of Rotherham to put things right.

Eric Pickles: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and the substance of his response. He is bang on the money. By their wilful blindness to address this issue and by their reluctance to tackle issues relating to people of Pakistani heritage, they just made it worse. The problems we are going to face over the next few weeks, with those who will seek to exploit this, were made worse. We want to make it absolutely clear that the House is determined to deal with the question of child sexual exploitation without fear or favour. I very much welcome that.
	On looking for commissioners, I consulted the right hon. Gentleman when we faced another situation and I shall be consulting him on this. Of course, we need to make it clear in that consultation that I am not in any way prejudicing the decision on whether the take the necessary action. That has to be clear. The cabinet has now resigned, which I think was the sensible thing to do. I do not think we can take that as the formal response, but I look forward to hearing what Rotherham has to say.
	With regard to Ofsted, Louise Casey spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and arrangements have been made to talk further about the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to look at the report and will know that there are certain references to and worries with regard to the police force. Louise Casey has also spoken to the Home Secretary and we hope to make progress, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are certain matters it would not be seemly to talk about on the Floor of the House.
	I am keen to get democratic control back to Rotherham. It is my intention to try to roll those services back. Initially, I looked at taking limited ones, but having looked through the whole process it was clear that it just simply was not possible. I needed to take the whole lot and then roll them back as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
	I have been involved with local government for the best part of 40 years. This is heartbreaking. This is terrible. I used to lead a large council. I can see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the Opposition Benches—he used to lead a very large council. I used to be the chairman of a social services committee. I just cannot understand how people with responsibility, both officers and members, could ever, ever have allowed this to happen.

Bob Neill: I share the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. For any of us who believe in local government, this is a tragedy. It is also, above all, a tragedy for the victims. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the boldness of his measure. Can he, in taking the matter forward, ensure that the commissioners appointed have particular expertise in their ranks in relation not only to the child care issues that are so critical, but to proper corporate governance, proper employment procedures and proper understanding of electoral administration, all of which will be critical in the period going forward?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend’s advice is very sensible. I actually believe that this is now one of the plum jobs in local government. This is a chance to restore good quality local government. We shall be looking right across the piece for people with enormous experience. Rotherham deserves the absolute best. I can assure the House I am determined to get people of immense quality to bring about that necessary change.

Sarah Champion: The report was very well researched. It is very robust and I accept it in full. I really welcome the intervention package that is being put in place, because Rotherham does deserve better. It has been let down. This is heartbreaking, but it is also disgusting—every page has a new horror on it. My plea is for the Secretary of State to put resources in place so we can move forward. I have been asking for five months for resources specifically to help the young people move on with their lives. We are not getting that and we need it.
	I would like the House to recognise that this came about because of the tenacity of the survivors who kept coming forward and kept highlighting, over years and years and years, how they were being let down. They are the champions now, because they have caused the change that we so dearly needed for our town.

Eric Pickles: I agree with everything the hon. Lady says. It is certainly my intention to involve Members of Parliament from Rotherham to ensure that they are not just fully informed but able to participate in the strengthening. She makes a really good point about the way the report has been put together. It is very clear that this is a report in which the voice of the victim is heard. No one can say that the voice of the victim has been ignored here. We owe it to the victims of Rotherham to put something in place that we can all be very proud of.

Tessa Munt: The Secretary of State said that the council went to some lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. Will he consider some mechanism whereby councils are formally made aware, maybe through declarations similar to those for Members’ interests, to a council’s monitoring officer and to the Secretary of State, whenever a letter before action or any threat of legal action is issued by a councillor, so that threats against staff, ex-employees, opposition councillors and even MPs are out in the open?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but the real tragedy in terms of governance and dealing with victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation is that it is not as though the safeguards were not there. It is not as though the whistleblower process and the protections were not there. The council had all the policies written down, but they were not there in practice. If someone blew a whistle in Rotherham, they were persecuted and bullied. They had a very bad time. We need to apply the same high standard that exists in just about every local authority in the country to Rotherham.

John Healey: As I said when the Jay report was released, our whole town was shocked and shamed by its findings. This report is also deeply and comprehensively critical of our council and our police. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, Labour accepts Louise Casey’s findings and the actions the Secretary of State now plans to take. Locally, we will all work with the commissioners to put right in full the flaws set out in this report and to put in place in full the recommendations of the Jay report to help victims and bring perpetrators to justice. The Secretary of State has made a welcome promise to play his part. Will he start by releasing £750,000 of troubled families and transformation award funding withheld from Rotherham that the council and its agencies need to help to put right the problems set out in the Casey report?

Eric Pickles: That, clearly, is one of the first things I will look at. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I really want to address the elephant in the room. He said that Labour would do this. I do not expect anything less. I do not regard this as political at all. I fully understand that we are in a charged political system, but this is about a failure of local government. I could point to lots of Conservative local government where this would never happen. I have to tell the House that I could point to lots of Labour local government where this would not happen. This is almost a complete parody of what local government should look like.

Andrew Robathan: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I think it is true that this awful situation was, to a certain extent, exposed by investigative journalism from The Times newspaper, which listened to the victims when the police did not. Today, there is another report, I understand, of two councillors and a police officer in the area who may actually have been personally involved. I know my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the police, but building on what he said to the Labour party spokesman, will he reassure the House that the police will be thoroughly held to account and will now help the victims?

Eric Pickles: I am sure the chief constable of the force will recognise that there are some difficult questions that need answering, and I am sure that, with the help of the Home Secretary and of commissioners, we can work together to ensure those past misdeeds are investigated and the necessary action is taken. From reading through this report, what is especially necessary is an attitudinal approach. We need to address that attitudinal point in the police, the council and society in general.

Kevin Barron: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to read the report earlier today in his Department. The inspection found that past and present failures to accept, understand and combat the issue of child sexual exploitation resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action against known perpetrators. That is wholly unacceptable, and may I tell the Secretary of State that I wholly support the action he is proposing?

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished Member of this House and I am very grateful to have his support. I know he will use his good offices to help rebuild a team of officers and a team of politicians that will be able to take Rotherham forward.

Julian Smith: Taxis have been, and almost certainly still are, the trafficking method of choice of abusers and exploiters across the north. I welcome the Secretary of State’s strong words on taxi regulation, and I welcome this very robust statement. May I urge him and his Department to look at every taxi licensing authority across the north and make sure they are doing exactly the right thing?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and I am particularly irked by the way in which taxis were used. A point has been made about putting in place new measures, but the regulations are pretty clear and straightforward. What we wanted was to see these regulations used. I wonder if I might answer my hon. Friend’s question in a slightly different way: I think lots of lessons will come out of this, and I will ensure that they are all learned very quickly by authorities that license taxis.

Clive Betts: I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that as Chair of the Select Committee I had an advance look at the report. I have also spoken to Louise Casey, who is going to come to the Committee so that we can explore some of these issues in more detail. I wholly agree with the Secretary of State that this is not a party political matter just because this is a Conservative Secretary of State and this is a Labour council; this is about putting arrangements in place to help the children of Rotherham, who have been let down in the past. May I press him on one point, however? If he decides to appoint commissioners and they find that they need extra resources, particularly to help the young people who have been exploited and abused in the past and now need counselling and other assistance, will he respond positively to any request they make for such financial assistance?

Eric Pickles: I shall look very carefully at that, and at the way in which victims and survivors are compensated—perhaps outside this particular. I suspect it is possible that the council itself may well be facing some significant law cases, which it will have to defend. But of course I shall look very carefully on this, and I will also look to the hon. Gentleman to offer some advice on the choice of commissioners as well as on the matters he asks about.

John Hemming: Rotherham, like all local authorities responsible for children, submits a return to the Government on what is happening to the children—the SSDA903 return. Every year, Rotherham is audited on what happens with its finances, so that the finances are not fabricated. In the SSDA903 returns, certain children leave care for “other” reasons; they may be trafficked, they may be abused—we do not know. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to have an independent audit of what happens to these children, and what is happening to the children who leave care officially for “other” reasons?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman will know from many conversations I have had with him since I have held this post and before that I have a lot of sympathy with what he says, and that is one of the reasons why I am very proud to support the foyer movement. I certainly feel that as a nation we need to do a lot more in terms of offering assistance to people who leave the care system, but I go back to the point the hon. Gentleman just made: the returns looked great, but the reality on the ground did not.

John Mann: I called for this intervention publicly six months ago, so naturally I welcome it, but what about the inspectors? We have an inspection regime for children’s services and for schools, but what is being done to hold them accountable and to ensure that the inspection regime is hearing and seeing what is going on?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I am sure he has not found it possible to read the whole report yet, but it makes it clear that the inspection takes place, the inspectors make recommendations about what should happen, the council says, “You’re absolutely right, and here is our new policy,” and then nothing happens. The issue is the process between “We know we should do it” and “We aren’t going to do it.” That is why I am taking this intervention today—or, rather, why I am thinking about taking this intervention today.

Peter Bone: May I suggest one thing the Secretary of State might like to consider doing immediately about child abuse? When the child victims of human trafficking come into local government care, they are not recorded as victims of human trafficking. If they were, when they disappeared there would be an indication that the council was failing.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters so he will know that we are trialling advocates for young people in these kinds of circumstances, and if that proves to be successful I hope we will see it rolled out rapidly. One thing that has been clear from all these cases is that the voice of the victim and voice of the survivor is just not heard, and we need to hear their voice.

Ann Coffey: What is really shocking about Louise Casey’s findings is the existing level of denial among officers and councillors about the extent of child sexual exploitation in spite of the recent Jay report, but this is not unique to Rotherham. There is widespread complacency among agencies charged with protecting children and councils in believing CSE happens elsewhere. We need a sea-change in attitudes. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that councillors, who are really important, receive adequate training in awareness and identification of CSE in their areas?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady’s report on the same problem in Manchester was very illuminating, but we need only look at page 19 of the Rotherham report to see that 70% of current Rotherham councillors spoken to by Louise and her team disputed Professor Jay’s findings, and that was continuous—“The methodology was wrong, things were not right, they didn’t count this.” The figure of 1,400 is probably conservative in terms of the actual numbers involved. What is clear from Jay, Casey and the hon. Lady’s excellent report is that we need to understand that councillors in such circumstances have a special duty, and that is something I am going to look at most carefully, to ensure that people realise they have a role of intervention.

Diana R. Johnson: Local authority councillors have a specific role as corporate parents for some of the most vulnerable children in our community. It strikes me from what I have heard of this report that that role is misunderstood by many councillors. What more does the Secretary of State feel needs to be done to instil in councillors an understanding of this important role and the duty they have?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but I think we need to understand that, day in, day out in lots of local authorities, officers carry out that duty extremely carefully and diligently; Rotherham does not speak for the situation. Others may also need investigation but, sadly, Rotherham—this is not about the town but about the councillors and officials—is a peculiar leader in indifference and incompetence.

Mark Reckless: When the Home Affairs Committee investigated child sexual abuse in Rochdale and in Rotherham, we did see a difference: there was at least some action in Rochdale, but we found complete denial in Rotherham, so I support the thrust of the intervention.
	Even if single-party Labour control may not have caused what happened, it did allow it. Until UKIP broke through there in the local elections last year, there was virtually no party political competition in Rotherham. Pending the 2016 all-out elections, will the May 2015 elections go ahead to allow us to continue to hold the Labour councillors responsible to account at the ballot box?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point about the way Rochdale approached this. The May 2015 elections will take place. However, let me say to him that this is about people’s lives. This is about protecting children; it is not about whether some grubby politician is elected or not. If we seek to turn this into some kind of political football, we will be as bad as the failing councillors of Rotherham, and I am determined that that should not be the case.

Mark Reckless: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Points of order come afterwards; I will take one then.

Steve Reed: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his response to Louise Casey’s excellent report. He will know that I led a council whose children’s services had been rated by Ofsted in the bottom 3% nationally at the time of my election, but was rated as the best in the country by the time I left. The key to that improvement was acknowledgement of failure, clear expectations of staff and councillors, high quality training, but above all else voice for the vulnerable children, and that means giving them the power and the mechanisms to force those who do not want to listen to hear what they are saying and act on it. What mechanisms does the Secretary of State envisage councils adopting so that all vulnerable children in this circumstance can be heard?

Eric Pickles: I am not sure whether that was a job application. The hon. Gentleman is right, and the point is that we do not need to invent something to empower young people and the service; it is all there in plain sight, day in, day out in local authorities. The quality and emotional intelligence might vary, but it is there. That is why I am hopeful: I think we can turn Rotherham around relatively quickly, and I look forward to the day when the commissioners are a distant memory. I regret that the hon. Gentleman rules himself out for the post, but he may have views.

Seema Malhotra: I, too, recognise the work of Louise Casey in this excellent report, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I visited Rotherham earlier this week with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), we held a girls’ safety summit. The young women we talked to said that they felt that, in dealing with the issues Rotheram is facing, people were talking about them, not to them, and all that they heard was coming through the media. They felt hugely vulnerable, but nobody was actually speaking to them as young people. Has the Secretary of State considered as part of his plans what message of reassurance can be given to young people across Rotherham about how they will be protected in future?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point, and I would expect the commissioners to start that process. There are, after all, five commissioners, and although we cannot expect them to do everything we will be asking them to offer leadership, to give courage to officials and to get them running in some kind of proper order. Everything the hon. Lady referred to is available in other local authorities, although not necessarily all, but I am absolutely determined that the fundamental, systemic failure of local government we have seen in Rotherham will not be allowed to spread like a cancer elsewhere. In truth—forgive me for saying this—this is a wake-up call for all local authorities: the Government will not stand idly by and watch them fritter away good resources and let down their populations.

Points of Order

Russell Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wrote to the Prime Minister just a few days before Christmas seeking his support for those who have gone voluntarily to dangerous locations in Africa where people are suffering from and dying from Ebola. I felt that their unstinting and selfless work should be recognised and acknowledged in some formal way, and I received an acknowledgement of that letter, but have heard nothing further.
	I was somewhat surprised that earlier today, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), the Prime Minister said that he was looking to recognise such volunteers and was taking that forward. Is it not somewhat discourteous to announce that in this place when he has not even replied to my initial letter?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I do understand why he feels aggrieved at not having received a reply to his letter. It is not a matter of order for the Chair and although all letters should of course be answered, it is not for me to say quite where the letter is in the system. I am sure that the Prime Minister, as a matter of course, responds to many thousands of letters and does his best to do so in a timely and courteous way. Whilst understanding the hon. Gentleman’s irritation—and I do—perhaps we can just take pride in the fact that there is to be such recognition. He has got his point on the record, but if it is understood by him and by the House, I think it best to leave it there.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we approached midday today, the noise in the Chamber went up, as so often happens just before and during Prime Minister’s questions, and I and others, and yourself too, found it even more difficult than usual to hear colleagues asking and Ministers answering International Development questions. Although it is natural that the noise level goes up and it is right and proper that you try to control it, I do wonder whether the microphone levels may be lower than they used to be, or whether the loudspeakers at the back of the seats are perhaps turned down a bit too much because of fear of feedback. May I ask that the technicians investigate this, so that we can better hear not just yourself, Mr Speaker, but Ministers and questioners?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that these matters can be looked into, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction to the hon. Gentleman that we will always profit by his counsels. We will leave it there for now.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr—

Mr Speaker: I will come to the hon. Gentleman; I am saving him up. I saved up the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) momentarily, and we have now dealt with him. Let us first hear a point of order from Mr Reckless.

Mark Reckless: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was shouting in my ear, so I did not hear the Secretary of State’s answer to my question—will councillors elected in Rotherham in 2011 be held to account at the ballot box in May, or is the Secretary of State extending their term by a year?

Mr Speaker: I appreciate that. I think the Secretary of State did give a clear answer, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a perfectly reasonable question and I am sure the Secretary of State is happy to repeat his answer.

Eric Pickles: The 2015 elections continue as normal.

Mr Speaker: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. A last point of order, I think, for now, from Mr Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had two exceptionally important statements today, and with your great courtesy, as usual, you have got every Back Bencher in. However, it is a little unfair on the Opposition, on a day when they have two official Opposition day debates. We do have the Leader of the House here. Is there any mechanism whereby we can extend today to make up for the two hours the Opposition have lost?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair-minded, and a champion of the rights of all parliamentarians. As he knows, I would be perfectly happy to sit here for an indefinite number of hours because I enjoy nothing more than listening to all hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House expressing their views. There may be people attending to our proceedings who think, “What a strange chap”, but the fact is that I like listening to hon. and right hon. Members. I do not sense any great desire on the part of the Leader of the House urgently to accommodate the hon. Gentleman’s fair-mindedness, but he is a very fit and lithe fellow and if he wishes to leap from his seat to offer comfort and encouragement to the hon. Gentleman, there would be no happier Member of the House than I.

William Hague: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course we try to avoid having a large number of statements on Opposition days, but sometimes it is unavoidable and there were good reasons for having both those statements today. I am sure that that is understood across the House. To extend the ensuing debate would have required a motion to be placed on the Order Paper earlier, and that has not been done.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I shall take this opportunity to mention that nine Back Benchers are seeking to contribute to the first debate, on apprenticeships, and 11 to the second debate, on electoral registration. In conformity with our normal procedures, there can be no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I feel sure that in each case the Minister and shadow Minister will tailor their contributions accordingly in order to facilitate their Back-Bench colleagues, which is a way of saying, “Get it out pretty pithily”. We will leave it there.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	House of Commons Commission Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr William Hague, supported by Tom Brake and Mr Sam Gyimah, presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 so as to make provision about the membership of the House of Commons Commission, so as to confer a new strategic function on the Commission, and so as to make provision about the exercise of functions on behalf of the Commission or its members.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 169) with explanatory notes (Bill 169-EN).

Right to Buy and Right to Acquire Schemes (Research) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Tim Farron, supported by Dr Julian Huppert, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into the costs and benefits of extending control of all aspects of Right to Buy and Right to Acquire schemes entirely to Local Authorities, including the operation and consequences of such schemes and the introduction of the right of Local Authorities to suspend them; to report to Parliament within six months of the research being completed; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 167).

Public Sector Efficiency (Employee Participation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Pugh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public sector bodies to include in their annual reports and similar documents their responses to suggestions and proposals made by public sector employees for the efficiency and improvement of their service.
	I hope that you will enjoy this, Mr Speaker. The introduction of this Bill is almost an act of atonement in itself. Over the past few decades, the House has been much occupied by what we like to refer to as public sector reform. In any word association test involving a member of the governing classes, the term “public service” would immediately elicit the word “reform”. In fact, we could mischievously define a public service as something that a politician feels the need to reform.
	The words “public sector reform” in the mouth of a politician inspire dread and despair in equal measure in the hearts of those who work in the public sector. We in this place have happily burdened those people with restructuring, targets, changes in governance, commissioning, reorganisation, monitoring and so on, all in the laudable pursuit of greater efficiency, better performance and better value for the taxpayer’s pound. In the process, however, many of those changes have distorted practice in predictable and unhelpful ways and burdened public servants in frustrating ways. They have not always been aligned with professional judgment and they have rarely if ever boosted productivity and real efficiency.
	My predecessor as MP for Southport back in 1906 was John Astbury QC. He is memorable for the following sentiment, which has found its way into several books of quotations. He is reported to have said indignantly:
	“Reform? Reform? Are not things bad enough already?”
	In truth, there has been quite a difference between reform and genuine improvement. Reforms are largely suggested by bright young things in think-tanks or consultancies who have little real-time experience of the institutions they wish to reform. Improvements usually come from incremental changes and from the example of those who toil day to day in a service. Initiatives cooked up here in the Commons have generally had little positive impact on productivity or the lived experience and daily work of those who actually do the work. We do not improve schools by calling them academies, and we do not improve hospitals by calling them foundation trusts. On a wet Thursday afternoon in the classroom or a busy Friday night in an accident and emergency department, the title on the board outside or the exact style of governance will make scant difference to how things actually turn out.
	There is a negative view of public sector workers that sees them as a bunch of unionised time servers who need constantly to be checked on or coerced lest they traduce the public interest and squander public resources. In my experience, however, that is not how teachers, nurses, policemen and local government workers are. They are really very different from that. It is not naive to think that most public sector workers are happier serving the public interest, that they want to do it well, that they would sooner act with real purpose than to little effect and that, like all of us, they reflect on what they do. They pick out waste and spot inefficiency, and they get frustrated and downhearted when well-intentioned Governments misdirect or burden them or when service heads who are trying to please their masters ignore their reasonable representations. They do not necessarily need or benefit from ministerial decrees laying out in fine detail how they must pursue their craft. Nor does it help to follow up such decrees with heavy-handed inspection regimes that are more about bureaucratic compliance than genuine effectiveness.
	The public sector ethos is not dead, but it must be cultivated and revived and not confused with commercial or personal self-interest. It is not unrealistic to think of the mass of people working on the front line as a huge untapped resource. My fear is that their advice will too often be ignored or drowned out by a plethora of desperate initiatives imposed from on high. I am therefore suggesting that a duty should be laid on public sector organisations of more than 50 people—this would not apply to smaller organisations—to include in their annual report or similar document their front-line workers’ suggestions for the improvement of the organisation or the efficiency of its services, along with the responses to those suggestions.
	I am not denying the management’s right to manage; nor am I promoting some kind of Maoist upheaval. I am opposing the consistent turning of a deaf ear towards those on the front line. I believe a small step such as this would provoke a culture change, just as the introduction of diversity checks, health and safety checks and sustainability checks has done. The burden of dealing with a constrained budget would be a shared burden. The work force and their experience could be co-opted into plans for recovery, development and efficiency.
	This approach is not unknown in the commercial sector, where good management walks the shop floor not in pursuit of grievances but in pursuit of good ideas. Under the Bill, organisations would be forced to respond to what staff had to say, or to ask themselves why their staff had so little to say. This would not be the same as assessments of staff satisfaction, although I would argue that a consulted, creative, involved staff is most likely to be a happy staff, and that staff are unavoidably involved in the pursuit of efficiency because they, like us, know the huge financial challenges that the country is facing.
	The National Audit Office reliably tells us that local government is near to bankruptcy, that NHS finances are on a dangerous trajectory and that the thin blue line of the police force is becoming ever less visible, while the demands of the public show no sign of abating. Most of the economies that we have succeeded in making so far have been achieved through wage controls or manpower reductions. We are essentially doing less or paying less, but that does not equate to genuine efficiency improvements. We need to get much smarter.
	We cannot revert to the polarisation that sometimes occurs in times of social stress whereby the public sector is set against the private sector and one is seen as negative cost to the other. A good public sector and a vibrant private sector are the two pillars of a thriving society. Successful industry—we can learn from that—has learned the futility of micro-managing from the top, and learned to use properly those it employs.
	Given the scale of the financial challenge that confronts the public sector, it could be said that what I am suggesting is mere tinkering, but incremental change mounts up. Incremental change is good change, and good cultural changes, if they are to occur at all, require buy-in at all levels. Good practice can be spread only by those who are involved in the practice. As hon. Members will recall, right at the start of the coalition the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister called for mass consultation within the public sector because of the colossal challenge we all face, but Governments are impatient, Ministers often do not want to manage, and in a flash we had restructurings galore, most notably the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is not the way to go.
	Incorporating our public sector workers in the pursuit of genuine efficiency is not cosmetic. It is not simply a way of affording them the necessary dignity that they deserve, but is a genuine attempt to prompt and provoke cultural change and a practical way of boosting the productivity that we badly need. There is a place, I admit, for consultants, for think-tanks, even for political intervention, and for testing against external and internal standards, but there is no case for ignoring the daily experience of well motivated staff or underestimating their desire to work well to high professional standards. What I am trying to do is to amplify their voice and hard-wire it into the system. That is what this Bill endeavours to do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That John Pugh, John McDonnell, Meg Hillier, Mr John Leech, Andrew George, Mike Thornton, Greg Mulholland and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
	John Pugh accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 168).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[16th Allotted Day]

Apprenticeships

Dawn Primarolo: I advise hon. Members, both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that there are under two hours for this entire debate. I will do my best to make sure that everybody gets in. Depending on the length of the opening speeches, there will be a time limit, which I will let the House know as soon as I can.

Chuka Umunna: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy; notes with concern that the number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by 6,270 in the last year, that 24 per cent of these apprentices are receiving no formal training, and around one in five are not receiving the appropriate minimum wage; calls on the Government to institute a ten-year national goal to grow the number of apprenticeships for young people and boost the standing and value of technical and vocational education so that the same number of young people that go to university undertake a high-quality apprenticeship; and further calls on the Government to use the money it already spends on procurement to require suppliers for large Government contracts to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, safeguard apprenticeship quality with new standards so that all apprenticeships are at at least level three and last a minimum of two years, ensure Government plays its part by creating thousands more apprenticeships in the civil service, give city and country regions a role by devolving money for adult skills and give a central role to business through sector bodies to drive up standards and increase apprenticeship places.
	I note what you have said about time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to drone on for too long.
	I want to put this debate in context. It is not simply a debate on apprenticeships. The issue of apprenticeships is central to a wider debate about our economy and whether it is fit for purpose. The changing nature of the world is full of opportunity for Britain. Technology is transforming the way we live. New emerging economies with ballooning middle classes are providing a mass of opportunity for our businesses, but these forces of change are also bringing challenges: how do we deliver the goods for our people when the uncertainty which follows from all this creates insecurity for many?
	As I have said before, the answer is to shape these forces of change and do all we can to ensure that everyone can access the opportunities available—in short, to ensure that everyone is connected to the new global economy and has a stake in the future. That requires an economy producing good, decent jobs that are fulfilling, afford a level of dignity, respect and security, and, above all, pay a wage that people can live off. Sadly, that vision is but a dream for too many in Britain today. Under the current Government, average wages have fallen by £1,600 a year on average. They have fallen by more than £3,200 in my constituency. Almost 5 million people are not earning a wage that they can live off. We are seeing rising insecurity, with 1.4 million zero-hour contracts. There are 3.5 million people in work who say they want extra hours.
	As a result of all this, our fiscal deficit remains stubbornly high at £91 billion. The Office for Budget Responsibility was clear in its autumn outlook published with the autumn statement that the Government have failed to meet their two fiscal mandates in this Parliament because stagnating wages have led to a fall in national insurance and income tax receipts. However, the living standards crisis that I refer to and the persistence of the deficit are symptoms of a bigger problem: the failure of Government to help raise productivity across our economy.
	Sure, Britain leads in aerospace, the automotive industry, business services, chemicals, the creative and digital industries, food, green tech and pharmaceuticals, among other industries. We should celebrate the success in these sectors, but across the economy overall, the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and the rest of the G7 grew to 17% in 2013, the largest difference since 1992. So on average it now takes a British worker until the end of Friday to produce what a German or French worker has finished before they clock off on Thursday.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to remark on the success in my constituency under this Government, with apprenticeships doubling to 1,500 a year. It is not just a matter of problems; it is also a matter of dealing with success. In many parts of the country where there is high growth and unemployment is falling—in Huntingdon it has fallen to 1%— we need better training so that employers can invest in their staff to deal with the lack of skills that exists as our economy improves.

Chuka Umunna: I agree that quality is important, but apprenticeships in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have fallen by 11%. Many apprenticeships are not the high-quality apprenticeships that I think he refers to. Many of them are level 2.
	There has been much debate in economic circles as to why we have gone backwards on productivity so fast under this Government. People have pointed to the lack of business investment, which is compounded by the problems that businesses have faced in getting access to finance, but skills shortages in our economy are also holding Britain back. Too many young people in particular do not have the skills our businesses require when they leave secondary education, and even among those who do have skills and qualifications, there is a mismatch between their skills and the demand for technician-level competency, particularly for jobs requiring people with science, technology, engineering and maths skills—the STEM skills.
	To address this we need a major expansion of high-quality vocational and technical education, in particular apprenticeships for young people, offering more and better work-and-train opportunities in all sectors of the economy, giving them those skills which employers say are lacking.

Jake Berry: On the number of apprenticeship starts in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will he comment on the fact that in 2010, 340 people started apprenticeships and last year 880 people started them. Why does he think the number of apprenticeships has doubled in his constituency?

Chuka Umunna: I will explain the numbers shortly. The number of young people on apprenticeships in my constituency has fallen by 18%, and in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency the number of apprenticeships overall has fallen by 18%.

Richard Graham: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Chuka Umunna: I will give way to—

Jonathan Djanogly: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency had fallen, but I am looking at the House of Commons published figures—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Djanogly, you are continuing the debate; that is not a point of order for the Chair. We are pressed for time, and we need to make sure we hear the opening speeches from both sides and have the debate. You have not indicated that you want to speak, whereas others have. We need to get on to the debate, so I call Chuka Umunna.

Chuka Umunna: I was going to give way to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

Richard Graham: I seek the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on three quick points—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Sit down please, Mr Graham. This is not the opportunity to make three quick points—it is an intervention. [Interruption.] No, I am going to be really strict on this. You wish to speak in this debate as well, and I am doing my best to protect time for Back Benchers. The convention of an intervention is: one point relevant to the point being made. So not three points, but one, thank you.

Richard Graham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My one point is simply to ask the shadow Business Secretary whether he has considered what the impact of 2 million apprentices is on the wages of the lower earners, and whether it is not natural that a substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships will lead to more people not earning quite as much as they will in the future when they are better trained.

Chuka Umunna: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his one intervention. I will come on to deal with pay and the 2 million figure he gives, but first I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Andrew Gwynne: May I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he and the Labour Front-Bench team gave to my private Member’s Bill in the previous Session? The Government talked it out, and does he not think that that was a wasted opportunity, because for every £1 million of capital investment in public procurement, we could have secured an additional apprenticeship?

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I congratulated him at the time on his Bill, and we should continue to remind this House of the efforts that were made then and the wasted opportunity to which he refers. The reason he introduced that Bill was clearly because he read the OECD’s review of vocational education and training, which found that few countries achieve strong engagement in vocational education and training without a strong apprenticeship system. Now, that will not automatically happen on its own. Government must play an active role, not in a top-down, command-control fashion, but by using their convening power in an enterprising, entrepreneurial way, working in partnership with business to address the problem and to increase productivity. Before I explain how we aim to achieve that and consider what the Government have done during this Parliament, when I will touch on that 2 million figure, I want to say something about our record, because I am sure it will be referred to.
	I accept that when Labour left office there was an outstanding need to increase the number and improve the quality of apprenticeships in our country, but before Government Members get too excited, I should say that it would be wrong to claim we did not make any progress. In government, we more than quadrupled the number of apprenticeship starts from a woeful 65,000 under the previous Major Government in 1996-1997 to 280,000 starts in our final year in office. Apprenticeships were simply not on the radar when we entered office; they were very much on the radar when we left office. We used the weight of government to begin the culture change we need. So from the 2012 Olympics to Building Schools for the Future projects up and down the country, we linked the creation of apprenticeships to public procurement across a number of Departments. We set up a dedicated National Apprenticeship Service to support and expand apprenticeships. I speak to many young people who tell me that they were signposted to the apprenticeship they are now doing by visiting the service’s website. Of course, it was also Labour in government that established national apprenticeship week in 2008, and the week is now an annual event in the national calendar. I am proud of our record. I am proud that this Labour party rescued apprenticeships from the scrapheap.
	The current Government have sought to build on the foundations we put in place. They say that since we left office they have overseen the creation of 2 million new apprenticeship starts, and the hon. Member for Gloucester referred to those. I do not think there is any point boasting about numbers if the apprenticeships are not of sufficient quality. I will come to that in a moment, but first let us look at their claimed numbers. How many of the 2 million apprenticeships are really new apprenticeships and how many have emerged as a result of rebadging—in other words, re-labelling existing work a person is already doing in the workplace as an apprenticeship? A very large proportion of additional apprenticeship places created by this Government have come in the post-25 age brackets. The largest percentage rise in apprenticeships under this Government has actually been among the over-60s, where the increase has been 520%. According to the 2014 apprenticeship pay survey, 93% of adult apprentices already worked for their existing employer before starting their apprenticeship. That would suggest that many existing training schemes, such as those delivered under the old Train to Gain programme, have simply been rebadged and re-labelled as apprenticeships.
	That is the situation on apprenticeships for adults. The shortage is perhaps most acute among young people, so what is happening to apprenticeships starts there? The number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by more than 6,000 in the past year. In fact, the number of 19 to 24 apprenticeship starts is currently falling in every single region outside London. Overall, the share of apprentices who are under 25 has fallen from 84% in 2009-10 to 64%, and the share of apprentices who are under 19 has fallen from 43% in the last year of the Labour Government to 28% under this one. So the simple fact is this: for all the boasts, there has been some jiggery-pokery with the numbers. The bottom line is that we need many more apprenticeships and we need to raise employer demand for them. Half our large employers do not offer any apprenticeships at all in Britain today—that is totally unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), the shadow skills Minister, has said previously, when it is harder to get an apprenticeship with Jaguar Land Rover than it is to get into an Oxford college, it is pretty obvious that more needs to be done.
	The numbers are one thing, but I said that I would say something about quality. In most other northern European countries apprenticeships are level 3 qualifications lasting between two and five years, and they include at least one day a week of off-the-job learning, as well as significant on-the-job training. In England, most of the growth of apprenticeships in recent years has been at a level that would simply not be recognised in those countries. Just 35% of our apprenticeships are at level 3 or above, and just 2% are at level 4. In fact, according to the Department’s own figures, published in its apprenticeship pay survey, one in five apprentices does not even receive any formal training at the moment. The figure increases to almost a quarter of those in the 19 to 24 age bracket, who are not being properly trained. If we truly want to ensure more parity of esteem between the academic and the non-academic—between the way people view university degrees and the way they view these types of vocational and technical qualifications—how can we hope to do that when they are not of sufficiently good quality? We have got to raise standards. Even where apprentices are receiving training, far too many of them are still not receiving the appropriate minimum wage—15% are paid below the appropriate national minimum wage, with the figure rising to 20% for 19 to 20-year-olds.
	I will come on to address how we intend to encourage more private sector employers to provide more and better quality apprenticeships appropriate to their needs, but surely government, as one of the biggest employers in the country, should be setting an example, both in recruiting as many apprentices as possible and in providing good-quality apprenticeships. The civil service apprenticeship scheme hired just 200 apprentices in 2014. That is 200 out of more than 400,000 civil servants, which is just not good enough. Never mind the Departments themselves, Government should be doing more in this area. They should use their clout as a procurer of goods and services to get more employers in the private sector to provide apprenticeships.
	Our Labour colleagues in local government have already been leading the way in utilising procurement to boost apprenticeship numbers. Newham, Knowsley, Sheffield and Manchester have all developed strategies to use procurement contracts to create apprenticeship opportunities for young people locally. Central Government should do the same, as those opportunities are simply not happening to the degree and on the scale required.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend makes the point about the importance of using the procurement system and Government money to drive improvement in apprenticeships. Does he agree that we need do that all the way through the supply chain so that smaller businesses, and not just larger ones, can and do take on apprentices?

Chuka Umunna: We should do everything that we can to encourage all businesses to take on apprenticeships. We need to be mindful of the fact that sometimes that can be a bit more challenging for smaller businesses, and we should think how we can better support them to take on apprenticeships. It seems to me that, if there were fewer frameworks and more sector-driven apprenticeship frameworks, we could make the system less bureaucratic. But, absolutely, we should do as much as we can to make it easy for businesses to take on apprentices.

Jake Berry: On a point of interest, I have recruited an apprentice to work for me in my parliamentary office. When the hon. Gentleman says that we should do all that we can to recruit apprentices, I just wondered whether he has done so himself.

Chuka Umunna: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) says that he has. I have not been able to because I am right up to my limit on my staff allowance, but I would very much like to. One challenge in representing an inner-London seat is the amount of casework that is involved, but I would love to take on an apprentice if we could all convince the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to provide us with more money to do so.
	I have talked about what our record was and what this Government are doing, but what do we plan to do in the future? At the Labour party conference in 2014, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition outlined our ambitious six national goals for Britain in 2025, which included ensuring that as many school leavers go on to apprenticeships as go to university. That will require a dramatic increase in numbers. To achieve that, we will work in partnership with employers to ensure that apprenticeships are appropriate to their needs, which in turn will boost employer demand for them.
	We will give employers, through sector and industry bodies, a greater role, ensuring that courses reflect their skills needs and that rigorous standards are set. The aim is for a skills system that is better aligned to the needs of employers and that delivers a pipeline of talented employees. We will also look to boost take-up by employers locally, which is best done by colleagues in local government working with their businesses locally and by those coming together to form combined authorities. We need to see more of such practice. Just look at the incredible progress that has been made by the Labour-run authority in
	Leeds under the leadership of Sir Keith Wakefield. The city’s new apprenticeship hub has doubled the number of apprentices in the city, especially among small and medium-sized businesses. Labour colleagues in Plymouth, Bury and Reading are actively engaging with local employers to boost apprenticeship opportunities, too, and we want to see lots more of that.
	Alongside such practice, we would use the money that the Government already spend on procurement to require major suppliers on Government contracts to offer new apprenticeships. In that way, we can create thousands of new apprenticeship opportunities. That builds on the successful approach of the previous Labour Government. It is an approach that has been backed by the cross-party Business Innovation and Skills Committee, which has suggested that a minimum of one new apprenticeship place could be created for each £l million spent on public procurement. So a major project such as HS2 could, under Labour’s plans, lead to the creation of as many as 33,000 new apprenticeships.
	As I said earlier, quality matters. Under Labour’s plans, all apprenticeships would last a minimum of two years and be level 3 qualifications to safeguard the trusted and historic apprenticeship brand, which has been tarnished in recent years. Those new rigorous standards would ensure that apprenticeships are, once again, a trusted gold standard and address the way that they have been downgraded under this Government.
	We were attacked for setting high standards by the Deputy Prime Minister in a frankly embarrassing and cack-handed response by him at Deputy Prime Minister’s Questions last March. He lambasted us for apparently wanting to halve the numbers of apprenticeships by requiring that all apprenticeships be set at level 3 and last for at least two years. The truth is that we want to rename intermediate apprenticeships to protect the “apprenticeship” brand. Apprenticeships that do not currently meet the criteria will continue but under a different name.
	The Deputy Prime Minister also got very excited about the use of the word “deadweight” in the independent report into apprenticeships that was produced for us. Chaired by the Institute of Education’s Professor Chris Husbands, the report recommended that we adopt those criteria. What the Deputy Prime Minister failed to notice when he got himself so excited about the use of the word “deadweight” is that the Business Secretary had published a report in 2012 with the title “Assessing the Deadweight Loss Associated with Public Investment in Further Education and Skills.” Clearly, the sooner the Business Secretary successfully carries out his coup of his party, the better.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key reason for retaining level 1 as an entry for apprenticeships, is that apprenticeships offer an opportunity for lots of young people who do not have the education or the academic skills? If we do not let them in through a level 1, they will not have the opportunity to go up the apprenticeship ladder. That is a profoundly important point.

Chuka Umunna: I am talking about not doing away with the qualifications of levels 1 and 2, but calling those levels something different and maintaining the badge of quality for apprenticeships by having them at level 3 and above. That will bring us in line with many other European countries.

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting the apprenticeship brand. Level 1 is a pre-apprenticeship entry qualification. Levels 2 and 3 are recognised by the industry. A person cannot go on to a building site with a level 1, but they can with levels 2 and 3.

Chuka Umunna: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	I have already talked about compliance with the national minimum wage. To tackle non-compliance and non-payment, Labour would give local authorities new powers to investigate and enforce the minimum wage. Hopefully, that will reduce the 15% of apprentices—[Interruption.] There will be headlines about how I cannot pronounce the word “apprenticeship”. Perhaps I should go back to school myself, but, to be honest, people mess up my name all the time. But, yes, we should be giving local authorities more of a role in identifying companies that are not complying with the requirements under the national minimum wage regulations.
	Finally, we will make it very clear that we expect Departments across Government to provide apprenticeship opportunities. If we are elected in 91 days’ time and I am given a job by Prime Minister Miliband, I will be working with colleagues in the Labour Cabinet to ensure that we increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities across Whitehall.
	I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. I do not think that there is a huge difference in views across the House, but it all comes down to competent, determined delivery of policy across Government. We are determined, across all Government Departments, to do all we can to reform and grow our economy. The provision of more and better quality apprenticeship is a key part of that and will help us to ensure that more people can achieve their aspirations and dreams. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House. I am clear that there is only one thing to do this May and that is to vote Labour.

Vincent Cable: I am delighted that the Opposition have chosen apprenticeships as the topic for this debate. The motion’s opening line is an admirable statement of what we are trying to do:
	“That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy”.
	“Hear, hear” to that. It offers a good definition of what the Government have been doing: the number of apprenticeships has doubled from just over 1 million to 2 million over this Parliament, and as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has emphasised quality, I should say that the proportion of advanced and higher apprenticeships and longer apprenticeships has risen systematically as a result of our reforms.
	We are therefore very comfortable debating apprenticeships. Indeed, the only subject that we would be more comfortable debating is job creation, which I think the Opposition have chosen for next week—the hon. Member for Streatham is very brave. I was trying to understand their thought processes in approaching the question. I suspect that they said to themselves, “Well, the Government actually have a pretty good record on all this stuff, so let’s try to find a negative number to debate. It doesn’t matter what it is, so long as it’s negative.” They did find a negative number. In 2013-14, for one year, and for one age group, there was a slight reduction—4%—in the number of apprenticeship starts. That fact is quite correct, but the argument built around it is utterly specious.
	Let us look at that age group—19 to 24-year-olds—because it tells a good story about what has actually happened. I do not want to dismiss older apprenticeships, as the hon. Gentleman did, because many of them are extremely valuable in raising the productivity of the labour force. The time series gives us a good analysis of what has happened during our time in office. In the year before we came into government there were 114,000 apprenticeship starts for that age group, and in the last year for which we have records, 2013-14, the figure was 159,000, which means there was a 40% increase in the age group he defines as the most important. As has already been pointed out to him, there has been a 60% increase in Streatham, and a 75% increase in Hodge Hill.
	The number of starts is one way of measuring apprenticeships, but in some ways participation is a better measure, because it captures the benefits of longer apprenticeships and fewer drop-outs. The situation with participation is even stronger. It suggests that over that period the numbers grew from 210,000 to 309,000, which is a 46% increase. Overall, participation in apprenticeships grew by 73%, and for advanced apprenticeships—level 3 and above—participation has grown by 90% under this Government.

Liam Byrne: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous. I am glad that he has focused on the fall in the number of apprentices under the age of 25. Does he think that that trend can be reversed with the budget that the Chancellor has set out for his Department, as implied by the fiscal path for the years ahead? He knows as well as I do that if the science budget is protected, that implies a 44% cut for the Department. Does he think that it will be possible to reverse the fall in the number of apprentices with that kind of settlement?

Vincent Cable: It is certainly possible, as I think we shall see when we get the 2014-15 figures. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should be investing more in apprenticeships, not less. That is certainly my clear objective. He might not have noticed, but the autumn statement included a commitment to £40 million extra for higher and advanced apprenticeships over the next two financial years, so we have every reason to be optimistic about achieving continued growth.
	The figures I have cited, which I do not think are disputed, actually understate the improvement achieved, and for precisely the reason that the shadow Secretary of State emphasised: the necessary shift to longer apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships. When we came into government, the share of level 1 was above 40% for that age group, and it is now only 10%.
	We decided in 2012 not to include level 1 within the definition of an apprenticeship. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out, that was entry level. We now call those traineeships, so there is progression. It is valuable to have level 1, but we no longer describe it as an apprenticeship. If we take out the very short courses, in particular, which tended to dominate in the earlier period, we see that the number of people in the 19-to-24 age group has actually doubled, because of the preponderance of very short courses in the apprenticeship programmes we inherited.
	Let us look at the higher level apprenticeships. For level 3 the number of starts has doubled. For higher—level 4, foundation degree and above—we have seen a tenfold increase since we came into government, from 1,700, which was negligible, to 18,000. There is an important point to make about levels. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham dismissed too easily the value of level 2 apprenticeships.

Chuka Umunna: indicated dissent.

Vincent Cable: Well, he seemed to imply that they were not quite apprenticeships. Actually, there is a lot of statistical evidence that people who do a level 2 apprenticeship and no more have significantly higher earnings than those who do not—about 11% or 12% over a three to five-year period. There are many important trades, such as bricklaying, in which a level 2 qualification offers valuable progression into a badly needed occupation. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be moving up the level chain, which we are doing, but I do not want him or anybody else to devalue level 2 qualifications or to seek to eliminate them.

Chuka Umunna: I agree with what the Secretary of State is saying. I am seeking not to devalue level 2 qualifications but to bring us up to—[Interruption.] Well, Mr Graham says that we want—[Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Graham is not taking part in this exchange. Just make your intervention, Mr Umunna.

Chuka Umunna: What we are proposing is to bring us up to the same benchmarks as our competitors, who are more productive than we are.

Vincent Cable: I hope that is a clarification that level 2 will not be removed from the hon. Gentleman’s definition of an apprenticeship, should he find himself in government. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right that this is some kind of ploy to reduce the numbers and save money.

Richard Graham: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is quite extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State has not read his own motion, which states very clearly
	“so that all apprenticeships are at least level three”.
	What is the role for level 2? My right hon. Friend is right to question that.

Vincent Cable: That is a valid clarification.

Caroline Spelman: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the message that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is sending to young people in my constituency who are studying hard right now for level 2 qualifications, and about the message he is sending to the colleges and staff who are working hard to ensure that they have the sorts of relationships with employers that can make that happen? Should he not think more carefully about what he says?

Vincent Cable: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Level 2 qualifications are valuable in themselves, as she rightly emphasises, but they are also part of a progression route. Many people who do a level 2 qualification take a break before going back and doing a level 3. I hope that we have now clarified that level 2 is a part of apprenticeships.

Steve Rotheram: With regard to proper apprenticeships, it depends on what a person’s qualification is on entry. With a lower qualification threshold, they would do a national vocational qualification level 2, on the way to doing an NVQ level 3. It is not either/or; it is part of an apprenticeship.

Vincent Cable: That is very helpful. The hon. Gentleman clearly speaks from experience and knowledge, and we respect that.
	The figures are very clear: we have seen a big increase in volume and a big increase in quality. That did not happen by accident. It is important to talk through the constraints on the public finances that I inherited, and on which the hon. Member for Streatham elaborated with regard to the problems that will face the next Government. When I came into office, I was told that the previous Government had planned to cut the Department’s budget by 25% had they returned to office. That was clear and explicit. Indeed, we have had to confront that in office. Let us be clear that it would have been no different had he been doing my job.
	The Department’s budget is dominated by two items: higher education, including teaching and student support, and adult skills. There are other, smaller items such as industrial support and science. We were therefore faced, in office, with some very painful and difficult decisions. The advice I got from the Opposition, in a particularly shrill and angry way, was that we must give priority to university undergraduates—future graduates. We did the calculations and found that had we followed the advice from the Opposition, and had we introduced the policy that I think—it is not totally clear—they are now considering introducing on tuition fees, we would have had to cut the adult skills budget by about 40%. Within that, we would have had to cut apprenticeships by even more, because, being of higher quality, they are more expensive than other forms of training. Apprenticeships, which the hon. Gentleman described as growing steadily throughout the time of the Labour Government, as they did, would have been emasculated as a result of the public spending cuts that I think his party would have made had it been in government, and that I was being advised to make.
	I then made a decision, which I think was one of my better ones, to listen to the advice, to reject it, and to do the exact opposite. We took a serious political hit on higher education, but we did the right thing in ensuring that universities were properly funded and that we got a fair repayment system. We also made the decision to invest more, not less, in apprenticeships. That is how we have got to where we are, with not only the volume but the quality. That is because we followed up getting the volume by taking short apprenticeships of below one year out of the system; by significantly supporting advanced and higher level apprenticeships; and, perhaps most importantly—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this at all—by introducing employer ownership through giving business a greater say in how these funds are allocated. In all those ways, we have improved quality.
	Let me deal with some of the other critical comments in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and motion. First, he quoted the figure, as he did when he was on television with me the other day, regarding what he calls the lack of formal training—[Interruption.] Indeed, there was a survey that suggested that some apprentices—

Chuka Umunna: It was your survey.

Vincent Cable: There were a substantial number of surveys; I am quoting the one that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted.

Chuka Umunna: It was your survey.

Vincent Cable: We have published a survey in which 24% of apprentices said that they had not received formal training. The hon. Gentleman has built his criticism around that.

Chuka Umunna: It was your survey.

Vincent Cable: I am not disowning the report; it clearly exists. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition could be a little less silly and just try to follow the argument. The key is in the word “formal”. Many people do good apprenticeships in business that involve informal work in the workplace, and many people define good training in that way. The survey that we conducted, which the hon. Gentleman is having a little giggle about, tells us very clearly that 90% of those trainees are satisfied with their apprenticeships, while 72% are very satisfied. Ninety-seven per cent. said that they had been trained—sometimes informally, sometimes formally—and 90% got a job. Perhaps most crucially, there is a very high earnings premium. I have quoted the figure for level 2, and for level 3 it is significantly higher—about 16% three to five years after graduation. The proof of the pudding in is in the eating: these apprenticeships do provide satisfaction, jobs and higher salaries for the people who do them.
	Let me address the minimum wage. The survey shows that 15% of people are not being paid the minimum wage. That figure is clearly too high, and unacceptable. The motion says that it is “one in five”. I am not sure who did the maths on this, but one in five is not 15%. Perhaps we need compulsory maths for Opposition Front Benchers as well as apprentices. The key point is that 15% is way down on the 30% figure that we inherited. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been part of these debates during the past year, we have significantly improved enforcement measures. We have increased penalties from £5,000 per firm to £20,000 per person, we have introduced naming and shaming, and we have increased the enforcement budget by 30%.
	We do take the minimum wage seriously. We believe that it must be enforced and that it should apply to apprentices as it should to anyone else.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that procurement is a lever for the public sector to employ. We already have many examples of good practice in public sector procurement. Crossrail is a company that has really committed itself to high levels of apprenticeships. There are a couple of practical problems, as I hope he recognises; I think he hinted at one of them. First, for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, where we are trying to increase the share of public procurement, there is a conflict of objectives. Do we regard getting SMEs into procurement as more important than increasing their number of apprenticeships? There is no clear answer to that. Secondly, companies that are required to introduce apprenticeships would simply add that to the cost and it would be passed on to the public sector, so instead of a direct subsidy through our 50:50 payment system we would be providing indirect subsidies. These are not crippling objections. We need to reflect on how we can better use public procurement, but crude legislation and compulsion is probably not the best way. I accept that public procurement is a good vehicle, and we have to work on this.

Bill Esterson: I agree that it is a real challenge, given the current situation, to enable more SMEs, particularly the smallest businesses, to take on apprentices. Does the Secretary of State agree that countries such as Germany have cracked this problem over many years, and that there are things we can apply from Germany and elsewhere to achieve the goal of getting more small businesses to take on apprentices?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a German model that seems to work for that country, and Austria is another example. Their approach is different from ours, but it has given them consistently high levels of skills in manufacturing industries, in particular. We should learn from that. There is an element of compulsion and levying that we have moved away from in the UK. However, I am certainly happy to learn from Germany on this and other things.

Andrew Gwynne: There are also some very good examples here in England. May I commend to the Secretary of State the work of Labour-controlled Tameside council, which covers part of my constituency, and which has established a local apprenticeship company from which SMEs can draw down apprentices, even though the local authority is running the company?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I believe there are lot of good models of that kind, and I commend the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
	That leads on to another issue that the shadow Business Secretary raised—devolution and how we capture decision making to a local level. He is right that we should have as much devolution as possible. That is what we are trying to do through the city deals and the local deals. There are many good models. Leeds is one, and Manchester is also getting off the ground. Sheffield is pioneering a lot of the local-level commissioning of apprenticeships that is particularly good for getting through to SMEs.
	Devolution is not simply about local government or LEPs. One thing we had to do when I came into office was strip away some of the bureaucracy governing further education colleges as leading providers. We had to greatly simplify a very bureaucratic top-down system. Devolution is also about devolving to companies, and one of our major initiatives—employer ownership schemes and the trailblazers, which set industry-level standards—has reduced bureaucracy for small companies and helped them at industry level to formulate standards that they can use. Devolution is not just about local government.

Robin Walker: Does the Secretary of State agree that LEPs can be great champions of apprenticeships when they have been given the power to do so? Today, the Worcestershire LEP announced that the ambitious target it set itself of having 10,000 people participating in apprenticeships in the county by 2015 has already been achieved. Is that not an example of how by using the existing structures in our existing counties, rather than creating artificial regions, we can drive forward apprenticeships and skills?

Vincent Cable: That is one of the examples. The LEPs have demonstrated the success of devolution and there are many other models. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has done brilliant work locally by simply working with local colleges and local authorities. There are many local examples and that is what we should be trying to achieve.
	I know that you want to bring more people into the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me make two points in conclusion.

Liam Byrne: Before the Secretary of State concludes, will he update the House on the potentially quite sweeping changes to how we fund apprenticeships in this country? The Minister for Skills and Equalities’ predecessor launched a wide-ranging consultation on direct payment through the PAYE system, but on 13 January the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), told the House that the process was in a state of suspended animation and that no further reform would be made. Will the Secretary of State tell the House this afternoon what on earth is going on?

Vincent Cable: Our objective is to try to make the system of employer ownership much more extensive. We have had great success with our pilots and are anxious to extend the system. Different models have been canvassed and there has been a ministerial statement describing very clearly where we are. We are keen to do this in a way that creates incentives rather than disincentives for small businesses. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that we are not rushing into a scheme prematurely, but are consulting. That is exactly what Governments do, and when the Government are returned, if I am still in this post, I am sure that we will see a lot of action in that area.
	Let me make my two concluding points. First, the shadow Business Secretary mentioned the importance of the status of apprenticeships. That is absolutely right. For far too long we have had a two-tier system under which supposedly clever people went to university and those who failed went on to vocational courses. We need to break that down. It is being broken down and there is a change in perception. A recent survey suggested that 57% of parents are willing to recommend an apprenticeship course to their children. Many of them can see the economic advantages of such a course and the status is changing.
	The big issue is the one the shadow Business Secretary started with. I agree that for the sake of the economy we need significantly increased investment in people and skills. The figure we have in the Department is that every £1 million invested in apprenticeships yields an £18 million return to the economy. It is essential that we extend rather than contract the number of apprenticeships. We have a proud record of doing that and I want to see it continue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to Members that there is little time left in the debate and that many people wish to speak. We will therefore have a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Adrian Bailey: Although I am speaking in part about an inquiry by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills that took nine months and made many recommendations, I shall try to keep my comments within the time limit.
	I welcome the debate and the cross-party agreement on the importance of apprenticeships and the skills agenda. I find the concentration on figures and party-political point scoring, shall we say, about the number of apprenticeships supremely unhelpful in determining our skills needs and how we will meet them. The Government, to their credit, have been prepared to invest £1.6 billion in apprenticeships in the past financial year, but we have seen a fall in the number of starters. Notwithstanding the substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships overall, we know that the increase has been much lower in construction and engineering apprenticeships, which are incredibly important in the development of our economy.
	If we take the education system as a whole and add in the money we put into the apprenticeships programme, we see that we are investing a huge amount of money but are not addressing the skills imbalance in the economy. I will single out two crucial areas in which we need to improve our performance if we are to address the problem. The first area is the education system, particularly the careers service in schools. Much has been said about parity of esteem, and I welcome the concentration by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on reinforcing the status of apprenticeships, which is absolutely vital if we are ever to change the mindset in schools. If I have time, the second area on which I will comment is engagement with small businesses, but I will first talk about schools and the culture in the education system.
	When the Committee visited Sheffield, it came across a very bright apprentice who had been offered a university place at school, but was virtually ostracised when he told the school that he would take an apprenticeship; he was not even invited to the school’s end-of-term event. That experience is reflected more widely. The
	Edge Foundation has said that 26% of those surveyed had been actively discouraged from becoming apprentices. I do not blame schools or teachers, because they are delivering on an agenda set by the Government. If the Government want to change the situation, they must set the agenda on Ofsted and monitoring to ensure that vocational training receives the same support and promotion in the education system as universities and A-levels.

Robin Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: I will certainly give way to my colleague on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

Robin Walker: I agree completely with the Chair of the Select Committee. I recently held an event in my constituency for apprentices to talk to school careers advisers. One thing that came across very strongly was that apprentices and their employers told careers advisers that people expected to increase their earnings in the long run by going for an apprenticeship. Careers advisers seem to start from a natural assumption that apprentices are paid less. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is one of the myths we need to take on? The long-term earning potential of apprentices is often much higher.

Adrian Bailey: I entirely agree. For too long the careers service has been seen as a bolt-on to the educational process, as reflected in criticisms by the Education Committee and Ofsted. I am not satisfied that the guidance issued to schools in April fully addresses that issue. The ability to understand a student’s potential and to place them in the most appropriate skills setting is absolutely essential both to the individual involved and to the economy as a whole. That area of education is grossly neglected.
	I want to move on briefly to small businesses. In my experience, blue-chip companies understand apprenticeships, deliver on them and play a vital role. However, our economy is dominated by small businesses—more than 90% of businesses are small ones—and it is generally recognised that that sector has the potential to increase employment. It is essential to get more small businesses to take on apprentices, but all too often they do not have the capacity, time or finances to train them in skills.
	I accept that the Government have recognised the need for more employer involvement, but the latest statement on 13 January fell short of what small businesses need both in relation to the funding regime and the guidelines necessary for them to have the confidence to take on apprentices. There is a lack of clarity and too much bureaucracy, and the Government need to take a consistent approach to small businesses if we are to overcome the problem.

Maria Miller: In my constituency of Basingstoke, the number of apprenticeships this year is double the number in 2009 under the last Government. Over the past four years, there have been more than 6,000 apprenticeships—1,600 in the last year alone.
	I thank all the businesses who take on apprentices and the colleges that work so hard to make apprenticeships such a success. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), did not want to suggest that those businesses were simply rebadging existing training programmes, because that would belittle the incredible work that the many hundreds of businesses in my constituency that take part in the schemes put into making them a success.
	I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that a future Conservative Government will make a £1 billion commitment to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships by 2020. That is the sort of commitment that businesses in my constituency want to see.
	Why do I think that apprenticeships are so successful in my part of Hampshire? It is for three reasons. First, apprenticeships are part of the culture. We have one of the longest-running apprenticeship schemes in Basingstoke at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Employers believe in apprenticeships because they have seen how they work, whether it is Fujitsu or MiniTec. Whether they are large or small, businesses have seen how apprenticeships deliver quality staff.
	Secondly, businesses in Basingstoke believe in apprenticeships because we have one of the top-performing colleges in Basingstoke college of technology, which delivers hundreds of apprenticeship schemes every year in subjects as diverse as IT, web design and child care. Such organisations are leading the way, and we should be celebrating them today.
	The third element, which was picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in his intervention, is the role of local enterprise partnerships. My local LEP, Enterprise M3, put apprenticeships at the heart of its skills and employability strategy that was published two years ago. It is that leadership and commitment, which has come right from the top, that has helped us to secure so much support, particularly through growth deal funding, which has supported the establishment of key skills centres right across the LEP. That is just the sort of support that we need for this programme.
	I want to make three further points in the time that is available to me. First, the hon. Member for Streatham made it clear in his opening statement for the Opposition that the motion focuses on young people, and rightly so. However, he seemed very dismissive of the role of apprenticeships for older people who have been established in the work force for a number of years. He needs to consider that position more carefully. My local college delivers three quarters of its apprenticeships to people who are over the age of 18.

Chuka Umunna: It is entirely wrong of the right hon. Lady to describe me as dismissing apprenticeships for older people. My point is that we need to increase the numbers dramatically, particularly in respect of young people. It is totally wrong of her to misconstrue my comments in that way.

Maria Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear. It was a little less clear in his speech. The teaching staff at my local college will want to hear what he has just said, because it is important that we have a lifetime approach to training for people in our work force. Training does not stop when we leave college, school or university; it goes on through our lives. Apprenticeships offer an incredibly strong way for people to increase their skills and ensure that they have a high level of employability, particularly in areas such as mine, where we estimate that 50% of the job opportunities will require a higher education qualification in the future.
	Secondly, I want to focus on the quality of apprenticeships. I commend the Government for driving up the standards of apprenticeships in recent years. However, I do not think that we should devalue the importance of level 2 apprenticeships. They are an immensely valuable way of making up for lost time at school or college for youngsters—or, indeed, older people—who do not have basic qualifications. I hope that the Opposition would want to rephrase the motion, because it tends to suggest that they are devaluing level 2 apprenticeships or writing them off altogether. I would not endorse that at all.
	Finally, I know that the Minister is looking at funding routes that enable employers to get involved in apprenticeships, and I would like to talk to him about the process used by the Skills Funding Agency to allocate growth funding—perhaps he will meet me separately to discuss that. Currently, the SFA requires providers to recruit additional apprenticeships and then bid for funding. Opportunities to bid for funding are every three months, but the agency does not guarantee that extra funding will be allocated in that process. Colleges and employers should work together to maximise the opportunities for apprenticeships, and we must ensure that we do not lose opportunities simply because of the slowness of the process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am afraid I was rather optimistic with the five-minute time limit, because five minutes plus interventions becomes seven minutes. I must now reduce the time limit to three minutes, although I will be kind to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) as he had no warning about that.

Steve Rotheram: Like many hon. Members, in just 92 days I will have reached the end of my first term as an MP. In my mind, it is still inconceivable that I have made it from being an apprentice on a massive building site to being, well, an apprentice on a massive building site, and although my political apprenticeship is about to be completed, the Palace of Westminster is not a bad site to work on. When I walked through the gothic archway that leads to the Chamber for the first time, flanked on either side by the familiar green Benches that I had only ever seen on the telly, I thought that I would be the only brickie in Parliament. But no—not only is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) a former bricklayer, but no less than the Deputy Speaker himself is a time-served, trowel-carrying member of the building fraternity.
	The Prime Minister was challenged by young people on the programme “Stand Up Be Counted”, and he said that although the apprenticeship wage is not that high, the training and experience that someone gets should lead to a good job. However, he did not say what he is doing to address the problem of wage rates. My party is right to advocate equality between an apprenticeship and an undergraduate degree, but there must be greater focus on training people for specific sectors where there is real employment growth.
	The Construction Industry Training Board construction skills forecast predicts that the construction industry will need more than 200,000 entrants over the life of this Parliament. That is in part to cope with political priorities such as house building and road improvements, but also to deal with an ageing population in the work force, with many workers reaching retirement age. That means that an average of 40,000 construction workers will need to be trained each and every year. To put that in context, in the last financial year just over 1,000 apprentices completed construction apprenticeships.
	Construction was hit hard by the global financial crisis and the Government’s austerity measures, and thousands of workers lost their jobs or were replaced by cheaper migrant workers. We have seen the continued casualisation of the industry, and the latest practice of umbrella companies top-slicing workers’ wages. That is why I am proud of the campaign led by my union—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—to stop quick-buck merchants and unscrupulous employers from damaging the reputation of the whole industry in a way that puts off many young people from considering construction apprenticeships as an attractive employment option.
	The situation is stark and a number of factors require addressing immediately. Careers advice is patchy at best, and we must get away from the perception that construction is just for low achievers. The gender imbalance is still acute. Out of the 13,500 apprenticeship starts last year, only 250 were female, and for the best part of a decade construction has not been an industry that guarantees secure employment.
	Liverpool city council has a great apprenticeship model, should others be looking to replicate its success. However, unless the Government are serious about filling the considerable skills shortages that exist in the construction sector, it will be extremely difficult to deliver those infrastructure priorities and we will need to import increasing numbers of skilled workers from abroad.
	I firmly believe that the Government can change the circumstances of ordinary people for the better, and if I am re-elected in a few months’ time and come back here, the Labour Government that we will form will give hope to a new generation that is looking for high-quality skills, training and employment in our costed apprenticeship programme. I hope I am returned to see it.

Jake Berry: I am sorry we have only a short time to discuss apprenticeships, which have changed my constituency massively over the last five years of this Government. In 2010, 630 under-24s were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and in the year before the election, there were 600 apprenticeship starts. During that time of high youth unemployment in my constituency, we saw something really bizarre: both the vacancy rate and, in certain sectors, the number of unemployed people rose. It was completely counterintuitive. The reason was that young people were leaving school without the menu of skills that our local high-tech, high-quality engineering and manufacturing businesses wanted.
	We have heard about the importance of encouraging smaller businesses to take on apprenticeships. I took it upon myself to visit all the small businesses in my constituency and say, “Why are you not embedding apprenticeships in your business?” In 2010-11, I found that lots of those businesses, for myriad reasons, had simply given up on apprenticeships. I visited a weaving mill in Darwen and said to the owner, “It’s fantastic to see all your looms still going”—people think we have lost our textile industry in Lancashire, but it is still going strong—“but every single person working them has white hair.” I do not mean to criticise anyone with white hair, but in 10 years, if he has not got apprentices back into his business, his highly skilled British manufacturing business will shut.
	The mill owner, along with other great employers in my constituency, such as JJO plc and WEC Engineering, came together to launch apprenticeships campaigns with the simple aim of recruiting 100 apprentices in 100 days. We have now had three of these campaigns. In the first one, we recruited 160 apprentices in 100 days; in the second, we recruited more than 200; and in last year’s, we recruited more than 300. In fact, the tie I am wearing for this debate was woven by a young apprentice who benefited from one of those campaigns. It is three campaigns old and is beginning to look its age—and it gives evidence of the number of lunches I have worn it for as well.
	Because businesses in my area embraced apprenticeships, we have cut by half—to just 320—the number of unemployed young people and doubled the number of apprenticeships to more than 1,100. I am grateful for the support of businesses in my area in doing this.

Gordon Marsden: I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on tabling the motion and focusing on 19 to 24-year-olds. When I had the honour to serve on the Front Bench, one of the things I took to it from my experience in Blackpool was that 19 to 24-year-olds were a key group that must not be left out of the process. Many in that age group have missed out on chances, perhaps because of disability, caring responsibilities, lifestyle or family disruption, but theirs is a key group for progression. There is certainly good practice in respect of that age range. I think of the “build up” programme in Blackpool college, which brings many apprentices into construction; the Lancashire apprenticeships scheme; and the skills and jobs fair I held last year involving 300 young people and 40 to 50 business participants.
	As we have seen today, however, the Government were slow to match their rhetoric on 19 to 24-year-olds with the statistics. Why are they failing? In part, they are failing because they made such a disastrous mistake on traineeships. Traineeships were first mooted in 2012 by the Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was dawdled over for 18 months, and then became part of a long wrangle between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills over the definition of benefits. It had no marketing budget and no proper sell to colleges, and there was a continued failure to consult employers, as we see even today in comments in
	FE Week
	. The 19 to 24 age group needs to be encouraged.
	This is a Government who, while lauding apprenticeships in the round, have hindered the potential to access them in detail. This perspective has constantly been undermined, as we have heard, by the lack of co-operation from the Department for Education, not least in relation to the shambles of careers advice. This Government have commissioned good reports from business people such as Doug Richard and Jason Holt, but then failed to act quickly or effectively on them. They have not listened to what businesses and business organisations have said—and none more so than on the policies of procurement, which we introduced in government with some wonderful examples such as Crossrail.
	We have commissioned a trio of reports on FE, skills and apprenticeships, and we have recognised the need for mechanisms to secure a critical step change in the take-up of apprenticeships by small and medium-sized enterprises. As I pointed out when I spoke at Training 2000 at Bolton in 2012, greater connections with the supply chain about training and other things are all key mechanisms to getting things across to benefit 19 to 24-year-olds.
	That is why in our devolution proposals we talk specifically about skills and apprenticeships. They offer a key role not just for local councils, but for unions and union learning fund people. In that process there must be a key role for apprenticeships in the service and creative sectors, as well as in logistics and transport. We are going to have infrastructure projects that will produce £50 billion of spend over the next few years. We need to make sure that significant numbers of apprenticeships come from that, rather than having the record of hype and disconnect between BIS and DFE, which has too often blotted out this Government’s copybook on skills, training and apprenticeships. We need a strategy of progression, which the Opposition Front-Bench team are taking forward.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. The limited time available means that I shall have to circumscribe what I was going to say. First of all, I appreciate that this is an Opposition day debate, so I appreciate that the Opposition will find things that they think we have done badly, and vice-versa. However, I want to rise above that, because the most positive aspect for me is that both sides recognise that apprenticeships have gone through—possibly started by the Opposition—a transformational process. I believe that the coalition has broadly carried that on successfully, so I am hopeful that whoever are in government after the general election will keep their feet flattened down on this whole apprenticeship agenda. It has been absolutely transformational for many hundreds of thousands of people across the nation.
	I was the first MP after the general election to launch 100:100. It is not just that I was optimistic about defeating my coalition colleagues in Eastbourne, but that with a business background I had a clear understanding and appreciation that when good apprenticeships are put in place, they are both tremendously successful in securing employment for those who have been apprentices and beneficial to the companies involved. We achieved 181 rather than 100; since then, more than 3,500 apprenticeships have started in Eastbourne. It has helped to lift the confidence and mood of the constituency considerably. I am sure that it is also likely to be one reason why we have come through the recession so successfully.
	I pay particular tribute to Sussex Downs college, whose apprenticeship unit has been outstanding. I have worked closely with the college right from the very beginning, and continue to do so. It is running at a conversion rate, for a number of different apprenticeship sectors, of 92%. I want that in Hansard, so I refer again to a 92% conversation rate of apprenticeships into jobs. Colleagues will know that very few Government employment schemes ever run at that rate of conversation. I congratulate Sussex Downs on its apprenticeship scheme.
	Finally, on the status issue, I have been working closely with a number of different groups to try to set up something called “the Royal Association of Apprenticeships”. Depending on what happens after the general election, I hope to continue to make progress on that project. I am keen to work with leading Opposition figures as well, because the status aspect of apprenticeships is crucial, and if we could put together something like a royal association and make it work, it would enhance the status and gravitas of the whole concept of apprenticeships. I think this is necessary and will provide an important part of the jigsaw to improve apprenticeships generally for long into the future.
	It has been a privilege to speak. Apprenticeships have been a game changer, and I look forward to that continuing for the next 20 years.

Bill Esterson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the important role played by training providers in supplying the off-the-job learning that is such a crucial factor in apprenticeships. Hugh Baird college in Sefton does a fantastic job in partnership with the employers who look after the apprentices, across a range of sectors.
	When I visited Michelin Tyre in Stoke a couple of years ago, I met engineers who were in their late 40s or early 50s. They were the youngest engineers in the company until a year or two ago, when the company suddenly realised that it had no way of replacing its engineers. We heard the same story from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). Michelin now employs a number of young, high-quality apprentices, who are doing fantastic work and developing the skills that the company needs. As we have heard, that is a familiar story.
	The construction industry in the north-west needs 1,500 new bricklayers and 1,500 new roofers each year. Where are those skilled jobs to come from unless we get the apprenticeship agenda right? I hear from schools in my constituency that fewer pupils are studying vocational subjects such as design and technology. Of course we need to encourage young people to go to university, but all too often we value academic learning and qualifications at the expense of vocational learning and qualifications. The culture needs to change, but I fear that we are far from reaching that point. Whether deliberately or not, we differentiate between the two, and that absolutely has to change. As I said in an intervention, it is simply not an issue in Germany, where the vocational and academic paths run alongside each other. As is implied in the motion, the technical baccalaureate is important in enhancing the status of technical education and qualifications, as well as addressing the shortage of skills in the STEM subjects.
	Concern was expressed to the Education Committee about the damage caused by the reduction in the number of professional careers advisers, and the removal of work experience as an option for many young people. Businesses have told me in my constituency, as well as in evidence given to our Committee, about the difficulties that that causes in preventing young people from being exposed to the fantastic opportunity that is presented by apprenticeships.
	We must increase the number of apprentices. We need to make it far easier for businesses to take them on. We also need to make apprenticeships far more attractive to young people, and to ensure that vocational qualifications and learning in this country are regarded as being of the highest standard and value. That is why the motion is so important. I hope that it is passed, so that both our young people and the country as a whole can benefit.

Neil Carmichael: I will set my remarks in the context of the successful Government industrial strategy, because it has driven the need for 83,000 additional engineers every year. I think it important to concentrate on our apprenticeship programme, which must start to fill that huge gap. The need is obvious. For example, £100 million has been invested in Airbus, in my constituency and elsewhere, to push forward the frontiers of technology, and firms in my constituency such as Renishaw, ABB, Delphi and Lister Shearing all want more engineers, because their order books are full and their export opportunities significant.
	I want to make three points. First, we must ensure that the relationship between business and education improves by making it possible for business to tell education what it needs, and for education to appreciate the sheer numbers that are required in certain areas. That, of course, must include a focus on STEM subjects. Secondly, I think that further education colleges are the unsung heroes of this story. It might be worth while for us to start thinking about a kind of Russell group to include the very best FE colleges, so that they can lift themselves up, celebrate their success, and become the key deliverers of some of the apprenticeships to which I have referred.
	Thirdly, we need to talk about apprenticeships in much more glowing terms than we often do, and one way to do that is to have a proper award. It is not enough just to give apprentices something from the business. There should be an award that says, “Wherever you are and whoever you are, you’ve done it and you should be proud. Here’s a certificate to salute that fact.”
	Those three ideas are designed to improve what we understand an apprentice to be and to show why we value them so much. In my constituency, I try to do all these things in different ways. I established a festival of manufacturing and engineering, which is geared to ensuring that schools and business have an ongoing relationship. I salute the successful apprentices and firms who drive up standards and ensure that our real and growing economy is equipped with the skills to deliver the output and productivity we need. They are being created by various measures and by the long-term economic plan.

Richard Graham: It falls on me to be tail-end Charlie in this debate on which so much consensus could and should have been reached, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) pointed out. We all, across the House, share enthusiasm for apprenticeships: their improvement, their widening and their breadth. Unfortunately, today that opportunity was lost in what was, frankly, a disgraceful speech by the shadow Business Secretary. His dire, tribal attempt to rubbish this Government’s—and, above all, the country’s —remarkable achievements in growing apprenticeships and shrinking youth unemployment led to a string of inaccurate and, frankly, almost offensive claims. Let me try to deal, very briefly, with some of them.
	The shadow Business Secretary said that the numbers of young apprenticeships were down. The Secretary of State pointed out that they are slightly down for 19 to 24-year-olds in 2013-14. In Gloucester, however, they are still more than 80% higher than the comparable figure when the previous Government were in power, and were more than double that figure in 2012-13. Overall, apprenticeships for 19 to 24-year-olds in Gloucester are at 1,730 in the past three years, compared with 740 in the last three years of the Labour Government. The figures, however one tries to twist them, are remarkable.
	The shadow Business Secretary said that many of the apprenticeships were not worth the paper they are written on. How insulting to the 5,000 new apprentices in Gloucester. He said, and it is in the motion, that level 2 apprenticeships are not worth anything at all. Let me tell the House that that is completely wrong. The evidence shows that many apprentices do a level 2 apprenticeship—for example, in business administration—for a year and then go on to do a level 3 apprenticeship in the second year. I know this to be true as the second MP to hire his own apprentice. The shadow Secretary of State admitted that he himself does not have an apprentice and I do not believe that any others on the Opposition Front Bench do. I am happy to take an intervention. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is saying that he does have one, which is encouraging, but it is disappointing that the shadow Business Secretary does not and does not have that first-hand experience.

Jake Berry: Very briefly, because I know we are pushed for time. On the point of MPs having apprentices—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made many interventions. I am sorry, but we are at the end of this debate.

Richard Graham: I think my hon. Friend was going to make the point that it is important that we lead by example and employ our own apprentices wherever possible.
	The shadow Business Secretary went on to talk, with an element of derision, about the number of apprentices over 60 who have started since this Government came into power. I hope that my older constituents, Age UK and others will have noted that point carefully. In fact, he offended almost everybody I can imagine, including all the businesses, training colleges, councils and the NHS in Gloucester that have taken on apprenticeships in the past five years and have done so much to give the opportunities to young people that all of us across this House surely agree is incredibly important. In a sense, his final words rather summed up his speech. He finished by saying that he will be voting Labour. Well, I am delighted for the Leader of the Opposition that he has the vote of his shadow Business Secretary, but if that is the summary of his party’s strategy, it is pretty disappointing. We heard nothing about the opportunities to widen apprenticeships into more sectors, including nursing; the opportunities from the pilot scheme the Government have run to let employers take control of their training funds; and the ways in which the guilds can offer apprenticeships. There were many things that could and should have been covered today, and it is a great disappointment that they were not. I will certainly not be voting for this motion, but I do agree wholeheartedly with all the Members of this House who support apprenticeships and want to see more of them.

Liam Byrne: I am not sure which debate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was in, but he certainly constructed a few windmills of his own to tilt at. No doubt, that will be of interest to his local press in what I know will be a tight contest.
	This in general has been a very good debate. It has been especially heartening to see interest across the House in driving behind a shared ambition to boost the number of apprenticeships, to close the skills shortages gaps that bedevil so much of our economy and to close the looming large productivity gap that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) alluded to in his opening remarks. The fact that there is now a 20% productivity gap between this country and the rest of the G7 is shocking, and it is going to make it very difficult for us as a country to earn our way out of the cost of living crisis into which this coalition Government have landed us.
	It is simply impossible for us to raise wages in the way we want to unless we raise productivity rates and that, in turn, is going to require us to raise the level of skills in this country. As my hon. Friend said, we are very proud of our record in government in rescuing the apprenticeship programme from the Conservative Administration back in 1997. I think the grand total then was 65,000 apprentices, and we are very proud that we were able to raise that number to nearly 300,000 by the time we left office. We achieved that through some concerted policy measures, not least the creation of a National Apprenticeship Service, which was extremely successful in its short life. I am glad the current Government kept it on, although I am afraid it is now a somewhat eviscerated version of its former self.
	We were the first Government to introduce a national apprenticeship week back in 2008, but crucially we learned the hard way—and it is a shame these lessons were not taken up in the way they could have been—that public procurement could be used to drive up apprenticeship numbers, and I was very pleased to see on Monday deep below Tottenham Court road the extraordinary work that Terry Morgan and the Crossrail team are undertaking there. That public procurement project has now driven about 440 new apprenticeship numbers into the system. That is a very good example of public procurement being used to increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.
	A number of hon. Members have noted with appreciation that there is a degree of consensus in this debate, and the Government did do some things that sought to build on the firm foundations left by the last Labour Government. The skills strategy published in 2010 committed to improving apprenticeship standards, and the higher apprenticeship fund was a welcome innovation, as was the money for higher apprenticeship numbers that the Secretary of State referred to in response to an intervention from me.
	The question, however, is whether the scale of this Government’s ambition is anywhere near the level that is needed to get this country out of the hole into which they have put us. It has been argued this afternoon that there are four or five important areas where the Government’s apprenticeship reforms have fallen short. First, there is the question of whether there is enough training in the apprenticeships that are available today. The Secretary of State did an heroic job of defending the data his Department published, but the truth is that nearly a quarter of the 19 to 24-year-old age group do not receive any formal training, which means an apprentice in England gets under seven hours of training a week. We do not think that is good enough, and neither do the Secretary of State’s own advisers. In fact, the Doug Richard review set the target at 20% for off-the-job training each week so, on the Secretary of State’s own data and by his own measures, his Department is failing to deliver the right level of training for apprentices. That obviously has a knock-on consequence for pay. I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that 15% of apprentices not receiving the minimum wage was a scandal and was not good enough and more action needed to be taken to end that abuse. If young people know that an apprenticeship is something that is not properly paid and where the Government are content to look the other way when they are abused by employers, it is going to be harder, not easier, to draw young people into apprenticeships. The level of ambition in driving out low pay from apprenticeships is not good enough, and I am afraid we did not hear enough on that front from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I hope the Minister will correct that deficit when he winds up.
	It is pretty clear to us that apprenticeships are currently too short. Approximately a third of English apprenticeships last under 18 months—a shortcoming compared not simply with international standards but with other parts of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland only 12% of apprenticeships are that short, and only 17% are in Scotland. So the Government have much further to go in increasing the length of apprenticeships just to match other parts of the United Kingdom.
	The measures undertaken to increase the number of higher apprenticeships are welcome, but the truth is that only 2% of apprentices go on to degree-level skills.
	There is no vocational, professional and technical path to a degree-level skill worth its name in this country, and we are absolutely determined to change that.
	A number of Members rightly pointed out that underlying many of these shortcomings are problems in not just the apprenticeship system but the education system. The fact that we do not require everyone in our country to do English and maths up to the age of 18, as we recommend, is a problem. The fact that there is no gold-standard technical baccalaureate at the age of 18 is a problem. The fact that this Government have undertaken the wholesale destruction of our careers service is a problem, and the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), were absolutely right to point the finger at that problem, which we will be determined to fix.
	Our young people face the challenge of a world in which one in six of their peers is still out of work. If they want to go to university, they will graduate with a bill of £44,000—a debt that, on average, they will not pay off until they are in their 50s. Not enough apprenticeships are available to them because the numbers are going down, and nor are there a meaningful number of opportunities to take them on to degree-level skills. The fact that only 2% of apprentices go on to acquire degree-level skills is a major problem that employers, particularly in engineering and science, argue is holding our country back. Many companies are not re-shoring jobs because of the skills shortage. Mike Wright, chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, said in an independent review commissioned by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that we are graduating only approximately half the number of engineers we need to make good the skills gap. That means that we have to transform the number of technicians coming on line each year through the apprenticeship system. Right now, the Government simply do not have plans in place to fix that balance.
	The Secretary of State was sanguine about the fiscal outlook for his Department, but the truth is that if the Chancellor gets his way and the science budget is protected, the BIS budget will be cut by some 44%. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is not deliverable—certainly, his civil servants do; it is not a fiscal settlement that will allow him to build the bigger, better apprenticeship system that we need.
	A different level of ambition is needed. We should set a goal of sending over the next 10 years as many young people into a high-quality apprenticeship as head on to university. That is the level of ambition we need in this country, and if we are to deliver on it, we need to get several things right. First, we need to ensure that our apprentices can compete with the best in the world, which is why level 3 is the right level of ambition. Level 2 is an important step on the road to that qualification, but if we want to compete with the best in the world and close the productivity gap, we need to set our standards high, not low. We therefore need radically to expand the number of higher-level apprenticeships. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that our priority in expanding the university system is to create thousands of new technical degrees that would allow apprentices to go on and study up to degree-level skills. Those are the kind of skills that our science-based businesses are asking for.
	We need to accompany these changes with radical measures to devolve spending to city regions, which will often know their local labour market best, but above all we must harness public procurement on a completely different scale compared with the ambitions set out by this Government. That point was wisely made by the Chair of the Select Committee. I am glad that there is a shared ambition across the House on the aspiration but there needs to be a practical policy in place to deliver that aspiration, and Labour Members are determined to practise what we preach.

Nicholas Boles: It came as a bit of a surprise to learn that the Opposition were proposing a debate on apprenticeships, because as we have heard during this excellent debate, the Government can point to a remarkable record of success in their apprenticeship programme. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that the number of apprenticeships in his constituency was 80% higher in the past year than in the last year of the previous Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) told the House that, through his efforts to create jobs fairs and no fewer than three apprenticeship fairs, unemployment in his constituency was now 50% lower than it was when he was elected to Parliament. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) that her local college, Basingstoke college, was keen to invest more money every year to create more apprenticeships, and I will of course be delighted to meet her and the college principal to discuss ways in which the college can bid more effectively for money in-year when it can identify ways to grow its programme.
	I was particularly pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who brought to the debate the enormous advantage of having completed an apprenticeship himself. I have no idea why he chose to give up that honourable trade for the one that he is now pursuing, but I am nevertheless full of admiration for him. He made an important contribution —compared with the woolly and glib thinking of those on his Front Bench—in pointing out the crucial importance of level 2 apprenticeships, particularly in construction. It would simply be wrong to tell the young men and women who are doing a level 2 apprenticeship in bricklaying that it was no longer going to be called an apprenticeship, even though they were employed, working hard, going to college and training, and even though they were securing valuable qualifications, of which many more are needed.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who made the particularly important point that there was a key link between apprenticeships and the industrial strategies that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has brought in. He also said that we needed to work with local economic partnerships to create apprenticeships that support the local growing sectors in his constituency and elsewhere. I am sorry that I have not yet been invited to his festival of manufacturing and engineering, but I look forward to receiving an invitation to the next one when he is re-elected in May.
	We have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends about the good record of this Government. We have our record to be proud of, but Conservative Members also have a clear plan for the future. Unlike the Opposition’s proposals in the motion, our plan is fully costed and fully resourced.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Nicholas Boles: We will continue to improve the quality of apprenticeships through our Trailblazers programme by getting groups of employers to develop apprenticeship standards that deliver the skills that they need. We will also offer young people a clear choice: to earn or learn—to get a job or to go to university—or to combine earning and learning through an apprenticeship. It does young people no favours to let them start their lives in subsidised inactivity, neither earning nor learning, so we will restrict the benefits that young people receive and use the money saved from that and from the proceeds of a reduction in the benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 to fund 3 million high-quality apprenticeships between 2015 and 2020.
	By contrast, what we have heard from the Opposition has been hopelessly vague. After the comprehensive demolition of the shadow Secretary of State’s policy on tuition fees by university vice-chancellors, he has clearly decided to try his luck with apprenticeships, but yet again we see that the right hon. Gentleman is better with atmospherics than with policy detail.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister is not giving way, and neither did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) when he was at the Dispatch Box. I must point out that the Front-Bench speakers in this debate have spoken for well over an hour, which is why Back Benchers have had very little time to speak. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I call the Minister.

Nicholas Boles: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition motion refers to an aspiration that there should be as many people starting apprenticeships as there are going to university. Treasury officials—not Ministers—have costed this policy and advised that it would cost £710 million in 2015-16. But when challenged about how they would pay for this, what tax they would put up, what other spending programme they would cut, answer came there none.
	The Opposition motion also promotes the fantastically deluded idea that all apprenticeships should be level 3 and should last a minimum of two years. Treasury officials—again, not Ministers—costed this policy too. They advise that it would cost £680 million in 2015-16. Can the shadow Front-Bench team explain how they would pay for that, who would pay more tax, whose services would be cut? Of course not.
	It is especially disappointing to see this policy soufflé survive the exacting inquiries of the Opposition’s very own Masterchef, the shadow Minister. He has a razor-sharp mind and a real zeal for reform, but I am afraid it is clear that he has been relegated to the sidelines, allowed out only on high days and holidays and, as we have just heard, forced to read from the Leader of the Opposition’s lazily profligate script. The flimsiness of the Labour party’s proposals for apprenticeships might be harmless enough in the early years of opposition. That, of course, is where the shadow Secretary of State has learned his trade. But in government, it would create chaos.
	Employers, training providers and young people are making big decisions when they decide to invest in creating apprenticeships and in creating the training programmes to support apprenticeships and, as young people, deciding to commit to an apprenticeship. They need certainty and clarity if they are to have the confidence to make a long-term commitment to apprenticeships. They need a competent Government with a clear plan and a clear understanding of how much their plan will cost and how they will pay for it.
	If there is a Conservative Government after 7 May, we will invest in apprenticeships, which will be jobs and will last more than 12 months. Every apprentice will have an employer. There will be 3 million of them between 2015 and 2020 and we will pay for them by reducing other areas of Government spending so that, as we have in this Parliament, we can increase our investment in the apprenticeships programme. I urge Members to support those parties that really understand how to grow apprenticeships, and to oppose the motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 218, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.

Electoral Registration

Sadiq Khan: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises the importance of a complete and accurate electoral register to the health of our democracy; welcomes the fact that 1.8 million voters have registered using online registration, but notes that, according to the Electoral Commission, 7.5 million eligible voters are missing from the register; notes with concern that an estimated one million voters have left the register in the past year and that the shift to individual electoral registration could see millions more fall off the register; calls on the Government and the Electoral Commission to do more to tackle under-registration, including block-registering students in university or college accommodation and people living in adult sheltered accommodation and care homes, introducing a schools registration scheme, on the model of the Northern Ireland Schools Initiative, to boost registration in time for the General Election on 7 May 2015, and maximising the use of national and local data sets in securing a complete register; and further calls on the Government to set a clear goal to reduce the numbers of missing voters and to delay fully implementing individual electoral registration until this goal is met.
	As the Government’s timetable has meant limited time for debating this important matter, I shall focus my remarks on the motion and how we can ensure that the general election in 92 days’ time is as fair as possible. We want the electoral register to be as complete and accurate as possible—something that I hope we all want. After all, it is the lifeblood of our democracy. If a person is not on the list, they cannot vote—it is as simple as that.
	However, the electoral register also performs a much wider civic function. It provides the building blocks that the Boundary Commission uses to decide parliamentary constituency boundaries. One of the fundamental principles of our legal system—trial by one’s peers—depends on the register, as it provides the list of those who can be called for jury service. Those who are not on the register will find it more difficult, and maybe even impossible, to secure credit or a mortgage.
	That is why it is so appalling that according to the Electoral Commission’s own research some 7.5 million people are missing from the register. We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: young voters, students, those who have recently changed address, those who rent privately, the unemployed, those from ethnic minorities and those in socio-economic groups D and E—in other words, poorer members of society.
	Some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet estimates of the proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds on it vary from 56% to 70%. If that were not a big enough problem, we know that there is also considerable variation in the rates of those who actually vote. Just 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2010 general election, and the figure for the over-65s was pushing 75%.

Matthew Offord: On 13 October 2011 the right hon. Gentleman said that 10 million people would lose the right to vote, but he has just said that the figure is only 7.5 million, so how has the situation improved since then?

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—that 7.5 million is somehow more acceptable? He will appreciate, because he cares about these matters, that it depends on what figures are referred to. The Electoral Commission has done some estimates, as have other academics. It might be a laughing matter for Conservative MPs, but we think that it is a very serious issue.

Luciana Berger: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way in this incredibly important debate. Does he share the concern of many people in Liverpool that the figures for attainers—the under-18s who still need to go on the register in anticipation of becoming eligible to vote—show a 97% drop in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds on Liverpool’s electoral register as a result of the introduction of the Government’s new scheme, from 2,635 to just 76? Is he as appalled as I am about those new figures?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, the register that will be used for the general election in 92 days’ time will have missing from it those who have just reached the age of 18 and should be taking part in general elections. It is estimated that there will be 3.3 million first-time voters on 7 May, and we are concerned that too many of them will be missing from the register.
	Almost three quarters of those who vote are in socio-economic class AB—the wealthiest—yet fewer than two thirds of C2s and Ds do so. Our elections are being fought on the basis of a seriously skewed register, with key groups and communities under-represented.

Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: In a moment.
	Our election results are being decided by voters who are older and more affluent. This is an appropriate time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: There are 47 countries in the Council of Europe, and individual voter registration is a basic minimum safeguard against fraud in every single one of them. Does the right hon. Gentleman not support that as a basic principle?

Sadiq Khan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we introduced the measure in 2009, and he supported it. Under our motion, we would not get rid of individual voter registration but ensure that there were safeguards before the next general election.

Mark Field: I represent an inner-city seat where we shall see a significant reduction in the overall number of our electors, and I am concerned about the implications of that. Individual voter registration came in cheek by jowl with the concerns about electoral fraud that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the genuine concern about the fact that we can now have postal votes at will? The number of postal votes went up from some 920,000 in the 1997 election to over 6 million in the last election. It is the concern about the misuse of postal votes that makes individual registration so important.

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant to the motion, but I will deal with it directly. If he has concerns about the misuse of postal votes, I advise him to report them to the police and to the Electoral Commission. He will be aware of the numbers of prosecutions that there have been over the past few years. We have to be quite careful about using parliamentary privilege to make allegations. If he has specific examples, I ask him to refer them to the police and the Electoral Commission.

Chris Ruane: The constituency with the highest proportion of postal ballots is Tatton, with 96%. Is the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) aware that 93% of people transferred their postal ballots from household registration to individual registration? Postal ballots are valued by the voting public.

Sadiq Khan: That is a very important point. In some constituencies the number of people using postal votes is incredibly high. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was not suggesting that the voters in Tatton are committing electoral fraud.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a complete red herring? The Electoral Commission’s report of 2006, when we had all-postal pilots—in my own constituency, for example—found that fraud was not an issue.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, he was not suggesting that there was huge-scale fraud but pointing out the concerns that exist. He is nodding, so I think he accepts that.

Mark Field: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will let the hon. Gentleman make one final point before I make progress.

Mark Field: I was not suggesting that there is widespread fraud but that the large number of postal votes makes it all the more important to ensure the sanctity and security of the electoral system. Taking the individual registration route was an important part of that. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman’s party, when in government, made it clear that we should go down this route. The concern that he is expressing about students and people from certain socio-economic groups is part and parcel of the individual registration process.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for that clarification, and to demonstrate what a nice guy I am, I shall give way at one last time.

Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. May I inform him and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that there has been one successful prosecution for postal ballot fraud in the past seven years?

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the point that I was seeking to make a short while ago.
	There is some good news. Many people out there are not prepared to put up with this inequality. I pay tribute to all those involved in registering people to vote—it is a tough job, but critical—from local authority electoral registration officers to political party activists of all parties pounding the pavements, and from the NUS to HOPE not hate, Operation Black Vote and our trade unions, who tirelessly work to get people registered. I also pay tribute to the
	Daily Mirror
	’s No Vote No Voice campaign, getting its readers and their families and friends registered to vote.
	In particular, I want to pay tribute to and thank Bite the Ballot, the architects of tomorrow’s national voter registration day. Anyone who has been involved in one of their sessions with young people cannot fail to be impressed by the infectious enthusiasm of Mike Sani and his team. It is a real pity that the Prime Minister chose to snub their leaders’ debate, although it is perhaps indicative of how some in the ruling classes view younger voters.
	To complicate matters further, the whole way we go about registering to vote is undergoing a fundamental change. Yes, it was the last Government who, in 2009, legislated to introduce individual electoral registration. That legislation was shaped by the experiences in Northern Ireland—when they moved to IER, there was an 11% fall in the numbers registered, so to counter that a transition period was put in place for long enough to prevent a repeat. Safeguards were also put in place at key milestones to check against any deterioration in the completeness of the register. Colleagues on both sides of the House welcomed that careful and considerate approach to moving to IER.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), now Madam Deputy Speaker, who in those days spoke for the Conservative party, said:
	“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and of the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening.”
	The then Liberal Democrat spokesman said:
	“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-12.]
	After the last general election, the coalition, in its arrogance, decided to rip up the cross-party approach supported by all sides in the previous Parliament. The coalition agreement contained a commitment to
	“speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration”,
	and the Government introduced the reckless Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which removed the voluntary phase and instead introduced compulsory individual electoral registration from July 2014.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. He correctly predicted the drop-off in the electoral register, and the scrapping of the voluntary arrangement in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is the root cause of these problems. Does he share my concern that the loss of those electors will lead to the long-term deterioration of the electoral register?

Sadiq Khan: Absolutely. Having fewer and fewer people taking part in elections is a bad thing for all of us. The Government’s justification for getting rid of the voluntary phase was that it would save money, but it is right to remind the House that we warned that speeding up the process and stripping out the key safeguards was gambling with the completeness of the electoral register. We were not alone. Similar warnings were voiced by experts, academics, the Electoral Reform Society and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is in his place. We take no satisfaction in saying, “We told you so.”

Gary Streeter: Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that anyone who was on the household register in July 2014 who is still in the same house remains on the new register today? Is that not a serious safeguard?

Sadiq Khan: I shall come to the data matching shortly, but we have considered those on the register in December 2013 and those on the register in December 2014, after the data matching. An estimated 1 million voters have dropped off the electoral register. For 1 million to be missing in a year is bad enough, but the trends in the groups that are unregistered is also worrying. Data coming in from local authorities are showing serious drops among students and those turning 18. In the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the number registering fell from 630 to 114 in just 12 months. As has been said, the figure for attainers registering in Liverpool has slumped from 2,300 to just 76. Three areas with large number of students —Cardiff, Newcastle and Brighton—have seen drops of between 9% and 10.5% in the numbers registered.

Meg Hillier: I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country, with an increasing number of young private renters—there are more private renters than home owners in the constituency—and people who move frequently drop off the register. I pay tribute to my borough of Hackney, which has put money and time into bringing the register up again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of doing so is also a problem for local tax payers?

Sadiq Khan: To give Members an idea of the scale of the challenge, local authorities now have to write to each individual voter rather than to each household, which is a huge expense. To be fair—because I like to be fair—the Deputy Prime Minister has finally woken up—

Sam Gyimah: rose—

Sadiq Khan: A Tory Minister of course stands up when I mention the Deputy Prime Minister.

Sam Gyimah: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way. Liverpool authority received £161,000, which was the third highest allocation for maximising registration funding in the country. If there is any question to ask about the drop-off in registrations, it should be directed towards the council.

Sadiq Khan: Let us get this right. Academics, experts, the Select Committee, the Electoral Reform Society and everyone else says “Slow down”, but the Government go ahead. We warn them that it will go wrong, but who do they blame when it goes wrong? Somebody else. They are the same old Tories.

Kevan Jones: I must say that I take great exception to the Minister’s arrogance, because his letter—agreed with the Electoral Commission—missed off attainers, and that has led to the drop in the number of 17-year-olds being registered.

Sam Gyimah: indicated dissent.

Kevan Jones: The Minister shakes his head, but he should read that letter. Even the letter he has now sent out does not ask households to include 17-year-olds. He changed the original letter. It’s your fault!

Sadiq Khan: Perhaps Ministers do not realise what officials in the Cabinet Office are sending out, but they have accepted that it was their mistake.
	To be fair to the Minister, his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has finally woken up to the mess that this Government made by speeding up the process. That must be why, last month, the Deputy Prime Minister announced £9.8 million to help with registering voters who are currently under-represented. He accepted that he had messed up. Will the Minister confirm that that money is ring-fenced solely for electoral registration activities?
	Another critical factor is the extreme pressure on local authorities because of the cuts imposed by this Government. Local authorities have to write to 48 million individual voters, instead of 20 million households. Unlike the Minister, who criticises them, I take my hat off to local authorities, most of which are doing a remarkable job dealing with this massive change in our democracy, all against a backdrop of enormous pressures on council budgets.

Jim Cunningham: In Coventry, more than 8,000 people have not been registered, the bulk of whom are students. Coventry city council, alongside the students, has organised a registration day tomorrow at both universities. The situation is very serious, and it is no good the Government blaming everybody else but themselves when things go wrong.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure we all agree it is outrageous that the Government are once again seeking to blame somebody else for cock-ups that they were warned about.
	The electoral register is in a parlous state. It is just 92 days until the general election, and just 75 days until the deadline for registration on 20 April. We need action, and we need it now. Doing nothing is not an option. The main thrust of our motion is to propose a number of remedies to which the House should give its backing. A particular priority must be young people. All the evidence shows that if people vote when they first become eligible, they are more likely to vote for the rest of their lives, because voting becomes a habit. The opposite is also true: if people do not vote early in life, taking part in elections will never be much of an issue for them. There must be a greater onus on schools and colleges to provide focused activities.

Kevan Jones: The Electoral Commission and the Minister have not learned. Even though the issue of attainers has been raised with him, the letter that authorities are sending out, to which he and the Electoral Commission have agreed, does not refer to 17-year-olds being electors. They have not learned the lesson, even though the issue has been pointed out to them by electoral registration officers all over the country and certainly by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I pay tribute to him and other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for working hard with the universities and young people in their constituencies to get young people on the register.
	We need special provisions for this group of people. We should allow universities and colleges to block-register those who are in halls of residence, to meet the unique challenge presented by younger people, and students in particular. That could be done very quickly and in time for May. A similar case can be made for care homes and sheltered accommodation: large groups of people who are under the responsibility of an organisation, a local authority or a charity should be allowed to be block-registered.
	A scheme in Northern Ireland called the schools initiative has proved to be successful in raising the registration levels of younger people. It places a duty on schools and colleges to provide the ERO with lists of those who are approaching the age of majority. The EROs then go into the schools and colleges with pre-populated registration forms and get the students to complete them. That is even easier now that online registration is allowed.

Frank Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two parties that form the coalition have a vested interest in keeping down the number of students and would-be students on the electoral register, because those two parties are the ones that put the fees up to £9,000?

Sadiq Khan: Many people will start thinking that unless the Government take action. It is in all our interests for as many people who can vote to be on the register and to vote.
	One of the brighter spots of the move to IER, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), has been the use of DWP data to verify those on the old household register in order to register them automatically on the new individual register. It is far from perfect and it has struggled with many of the under-represented groups, such as students and younger people, but it has taken the pressure off many millions of people who have not had to go through the rigmarole of registering individually.
	That has showed how we can use data that are already in our possession to make the job easier. Why should we restrict that to DWP data? Why can we not look at registering people automatically if local EROs are confident that they are eligible to vote? That is covered in the later sections of the motion. The Government are in possession of considerable data about members of the public, including data on benefits, social security and pensions and data held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Local authorities have data on council tax, council tenants, parking permits, school rolls, meals on wheels and so on. Those agencies should all be geared up to ask members of the public whether they are registered to vote when they come into contact with them. We could perhaps set up systems to notify a local authority if somebody applies for a new driving licence or changes their address with the taxman.
	We should be more ambitious. We should be making better use of data so that people are put on the register automatically. I have had informal chats with some local authorities and they believe that they could construct a more complete register if they were allowed to use the data in their possession. We would, of course, allow people to ask to be removed from the register. The idea of maximising the information that we possess to populate the register has legs, and we will explore it in detail if we win in May. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why it is not being looked at and to hear what his objections are.
	In conclusion, it is unacceptable that so many people are unregistered and are being deprived of their say in the way the country is run. I am disappointed that the Government and the Electoral Commission are so complacent about the bad news on the state of the register —bad news that grows by the day. We need a clear statement of intent from Ministers and a goal for the reduction in the number of missing voters, because we cannot afford to take risks with the register. A chronically depleted register, with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country, will call into question the legitimacy of our democracy. Let us act now before it is too late.

Sam Gyimah: This is an important debate. The right to vote has been hard won, and it is the duty of everyone in public life, including those in the Government, to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote. It is also vital that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible. In pursuing that, it is my view that everyone who has the right to vote shares that right equally, including students, minority ethnic groups, forces personnel and British residents overseas. The Opposition speak as though some voters should be prioritised over others, but we believe that if someone is eligible to vote, we must take the necessary action to ensure that they are on the register.

Steven Baker: I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made an admirable case for political equality, and as he wrapped up his speech he spoke about the legitimacy of our democracy. Does the Minister agree how surprising it is that Labour Members are not insisting on the equalisation of constituency sizes?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I will not be tempted into that debate.
	Individual electoral registration was first introduced by the last Labour Government and has cross-party support—there is nothing sinister or cynical about the transition. As with academy schools in education, Labour was right to seek to modernise our electoral system by introducing IER, but once again we are seeing the measure through while Labour Members seek to disown it. I wonder what has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches.

Luciana Berger: The Minister talks about the importance of including everyone on the register, but in Liverpool we have lost more than 20,000 people from our electoral register. He said earlier that Liverpool had received a sum of money, but obviously that has not worked so far. What else will his Department do to assist Liverpool to ensure that we get those 20,000 people back on our electoral register?

Sam Gyimah: As I said, in addition to the £161,000 of maximised registration funding, Liverpool received £288,000 to help boost its register. If that money was not enough, the city can apply to the Cabinet Office for more funding using justification-led bids. Electoral registration officers have statutory responsibility for maintaining the register, so perhaps the hon. Lady will ask her EROs what they have done with the money.
	What has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches about IER? Is it because the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is trying to taunt the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in their bids to become the Labour candidate for the Mayor of London? Could it be that the Labour party, rightly scared of the next election, has retreated to the comfort zone of opposition politics and scaremongering about the Government’s policies?

Chris Ruane: If the Conservatives win, and if the Minister is still a Minister in June, he will take the most momentous decision of his life: whether to let 5 million people drop off the register before the freeze date for boundaries on 1 December. What principles will guide him in that decision? When I asked him that in Committee, he did not have any.

Sam Gyimah: I will come to the details of the electoral register—[Interruption.] May I answer the question? There is a clear process through which the decision will be made about whether to end the transition in 2015. That will be down to the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, whoever is Minister and whoever is in government.

Neil Parish: In a democracy everybody should have the right to register to vote, but we must also get the correct people to register so that there is no fraud. Surely the Government must ensure that the register is correct.

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend puts his finger on it: IER is about ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the register, and as we do that some people will drop off and others will have to get on it.

Siobhain McDonagh: Can the Minister identify any case in the last 30 years of wrongful registration? Is this not a red herring?

Sam Gyimah: IER was the policy of your party to make the electoral process secure. The Electoral Commission has identified 16 local authorities at risk of electoral fraud. Just because you have not been able to point to it, it does not mean fraud is not happening. That is the point.
	The same Labour party that introduced IER is now seeking to disown it. It is the same Labour party that said our long-term economic plan would lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. [Interruption.] Instead, 1,000 new jobs have been created every day of this Parliament. It said that reforming education maintenance allowance would increase the number of young people not in education, employment or training. [Interruption.] Instead, we have seen the biggest drop in the number of NEETs since records began.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to the rubbish the Minister is talking. It is quite embarrassing. We are discussing electoral registration, not the Government’s economic record, so could we get the Minister back on to the subject?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order.

Sam Gyimah: I am making the point that the Opposition are scaremongering, rather—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Stephen Twigg: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Just a second. The Minister was giving way to me, not you, Mr Twigg. I say to hon. Members that we have very little time, and shouting down the Minister does not help anybody trying to listen to the debate. Let us listen and show some courtesy to all Members.

Sam Gyimah: The Opposition said that our plan to ensure universities were properly funded would lead to fewer students going to university, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds. We now have record numbers of students, including from disadvantaged backgrounds, attending university. With this record, it is no surprise that the Opposition are seeking to create fear and uncertainty where there should be none.

Stephen Twigg: The Minister said that our motion sought to disown IER. Where in the motion do we do that?

Sam Gyimah: In practice, you either believe in IER, or you do not. Your motion talks about block registration—[Interruption.]—which is a deviation from the principle of IER—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not responsible for the motion. I have let one or two “yous” go, but now I feel I am being brought into this debate. I also say to Members that the Minister is giving examples as he sees fit. It might not suit certain Members, but it is up to the Minister to make his speech as he wishes, and he is completely in order.

Sam Gyimah: Let me give the facts on the electoral register. The Electoral Commission’s research shows that, in 2000, 3 million people were missing from the register. In 2011, that figure had risen to an estimated 7.5 million. This is against a backdrop of an increasing population. Since 2011, the drop in registration figures has stabilised. For the 13 years Labour was in power, the state of the register deteriorated, and very little was done about it.

Oliver Colvile: Will my hon. Friend explain why when in power Labour made sure the military had individual registration but now seems less keen on the idea for other people?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend rightly points to the principle I laid out at the beginning of my speech: we have to treat all voters equally when it comes to the electoral register.
	We all know that under the old system the register was inflated. Tenants and students moved on, but the register did not. People were registered at multiple addresses without their knowledge.

Nick Smith: In Blaenau Gwent over the past year, more than 2,000 people have dropped off the register. Does the Minister accept that being on the register is important in obtaining credit and getting a mortgage? What are the Government going to do to help the 8.5 million people who have fallen off the register to get a mortgage and to borrow money?

Sam Gyimah: The number of people on the register is increasing all the time. If we look at the register for December or for any month, we see that it provides a partial snapshot of a two-year transition process. We also know that the old system was susceptible to fraud. In one case, someone managed to register their dog to vote.

Mark Tami: Does the Minister not accept that many of these problems became apparent when this was introduced in Northern Ireland? The Government have chosen to ignore all that and press on anyway.

Sam Gyimah: That is contrary to the facts. One thing the Government did was to learn the lessons from Northern Ireland. Without going into all the detail, we preserved the annual canvass, for example. Electoral registration plummeted in Northern Ireland because it did not have the annual canvass. Since IER went live, however, nine out of 10 electors have been automatically transferred to the electoral register. No one on the electoral roll at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the next general election.

Matthew Offord: Much emphasis is placed on people missing from the register. The Minister said that people entitled to be on the register are on it for two years. When I asked my office to go through some of the people seeking asylum and indefinite leave to remain in this country, we found that 16 people not entitled to vote under the old system were on the register and that 10 of them continued to be so. I have duplications and people who should not be on the register. What provision will be made to remove them?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend points to why we introduced IER. He should take the matter up with his local ERO, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of his local register.
	Online registration has made it simpler and easier to register to vote, and I am pleased to announce that 900,000 18 to 25-year-olds have registered to vote online. As I said, we have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland.
	I can assure the House that every resource request, from electoral returning officers, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Electoral Commission has been met. I pay tribute to all the electoral administration officers and dedicated professionals in the Cabinet Office who are working to make the transition to IER a smooth one, but we are not complacent.

Graham Allen: For the record, the Minister said that 900,000 had registered to vote online, but I think 900,000 might have chosen to register online—unless his announcement is much more significant than we all thought, and he is actually announcing today online voting, which many of us would welcome.

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction; that number registered to vote online.
	Despite the 900,000 young people who have registered to vote online, we are not complacent in our efforts. In January, we announced that an extra £10 million would be invested this year to maximise voter registration—in addition to the £4.2 million announced last year. Today, I can announce that £2.5 million of this funding will be used specifically to target groups that are under-represented on the electoral roll, including students, minority ethnic communities, overseas voters and members of the armed forces, while also tackling the issue of electoral fraud.

Kevan Jones: The Minister keeps talking about money, but the issue is not about money; it is about the system that he is implementing. Why is it that, even though he and the Electoral Commission have been told about this, the latest letter Durham and other councils have to send out to households still do not include the old wording about registering 17-year-olds?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question three times—twice to his own Front-Bench spokesman and now to me. What we have is a system of individual voter registration. Under the old system, parents would have put the attainer’s name on the form; under the new system, people have to register themselves. That is why we are funding “Rock Enrol!” to introduce students to the registration process at school, and why we are carrying out a national awareness campaign to introduce people to that same process.

Kevan Jones: Not only have I raised the point four times today, but I have raised it with the Minister outside the Chamber as well. The fact is that those who receive these letters need to know whether they will become attainers. Under the old system, it was possible to ask for anyone aged 17 who was is likely to attain the age of 18 in the next 12 months to be placed on the register. It would have been simple to make the change. The money that is now being spent on sending the letters would have ensured that 17-year-olds in those households were registered.

Sam Gyimah: The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was tested and approved by the Electoral Commission, and in terms of users. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress now.
	The £2.5 million that I have announced will be delivered through a number of organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens UK, Mencap and Operation Black Vote, to ensure that as many people as possible are placed on the register. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned data-matching. There is much more that we can do in that regard. We are currently running pilots involving the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there will be a report on them in September. Once IER has bedded in, we shall consider other ways in which we can use data that is gathered when people interact with other public services to help them to register to vote.

Sadiq Khan: Earlier in his speech, the Minister made the point that everyone should be treated equally. The fact that he is allowing data-matching means that every single person must fill in a form. If he accepts the principle that everyone should be registered in the same way, why will he not extend that people to allow block registration in halls of residence?

Sam Gyimah: The registration of students, and block registration in particular, is a key issue in the motion. In my view, you either believe in individual voter registration or you do not. You cannot have it both ways. Singling out any group of voters for block registration would be a step backwards to the old, discredited system of registration.
	What is most farcical about the stance adopted by the Opposition today is that they want to give 16-year-olds the vote, but do not trust them to be able to register themselves, even once they are at university. Their whole approach is based on political gimmicks. That is why the Leader of the Opposition ended up making a speech on under-registration in Sheffield, although Sheffield university, which has piloted a registration system involving the use of data when people enrol, has one of the highest student registration rates.

Paul Blomfield: Will the Minister also note that Sheffield Hallam university, which has not reached that stage, has one of the lowest levels of student registration?

Sam Gyimah: It should be doing that. [Interruption.] It is not a case of blaming someone else. In 2013, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities wrote to all vice-chancellors and academic registrars, encouraging them to look at multiple ways of getting students on to the register. We have set up a student forum in which best practice can be shared. If any academic registrars are not doing that, Members should by all means let me know, and we will write to them again to ensure that they are engaging in best practice.
	Let me now answer the question about block registration. Data-sharing between universities and local authorities is the key, and we are working to ensure that all universities share data. That will enable electoral registration offers to have students’ enrolment details, and to chase them to register. It also means that we can preserve the central tenet of IER, which is that individuals should be responsible for their own registration.

Diana R. Johnson: Bizarrely, there are more properties than there are electors on the register in the Witham ward in my constituency, where the vast majority of Hull university students live. Those students live in houses in multiple occupation. That strikes me as very peculiar. Will the Minister comment?

Sam Gyimah: Another point that has not been grasped by the Opposition is that students can choose where to register to vote. They can choose to register to vote at home or at their college premises, or, indeed both. That is entirely right. What we should move away from—and what we are moving away from—is the system whereby the warden of a college chose where the student registered. In some cases, people did not even know that they were on the electoral roll in the area concerned.
	It is important that we debate this issue, but we have to be clear about what is happening today. This is not a genuine concern about a policy, because we know Labour is supportive of IER. Instead, it is an opportunistic attempt by the Labour party to con students that it is fighting for their interests when its own activists’ handbook advises it to ignore under-registered groups. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Speeches have a time limit of six minutes.

Graham Allen: I begin with a happy announcement. If colleagues wish to go outside from about 6 pm, national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, is being celebrated this evening by a projection on to the Elizabeth Tower of an exciting animation showing ballot papers going into a ballot box. I thank the Speaker for facilitating my request to involve Parliament in national voter registration day. I am sure colleagues will avail themselves of the opportunity for a wonderful “selfie” from Westminster bridge.
	More seriously, the elephant in the room is not the technicalities of voting and registration, but why people are disengaged from politics. We must facilitate people’s engagement with politics. The real reason why people are not engaged with registration and voting is because they are disengaged from our democracy. They suffer a daily drip feed of corrosive cynicism, often very strongly politically biased, from the media. Our parties have atrophied. We have concentrated more and more on 50 to 100 marginal seats and not looked after our parties. There is immense ignorance, which none of us does much to dispel, around the idea that Parliament and Government have the same, rather than conflicting, interests. There is a failure, even in this place, to set out what a plural, devolved democracy of independent institutions might look and feel like. Add to that the chronic sclerosis of Whitehall and an over-centralisation that kills local creativity and responsibility, and we have a recipe of poor capability on electoral registration and bureaucracy around voting that can produce a poisonous mixture for the future of our democracy.
	I am delighted we are seeking to address at least some of those difficulties today. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has reported seven times on this specific issue since 2011—seven separate reports by the Select Committee of this place to flag up what might go wrong with individual electoral registration. I have gone back through the reports today looking over the same difficulties. To the Government’s credit, they have addressed some of them, in particular on finance and on certain technical matters, and I am grateful for that. Fundamentally, however, many of the difficulties the Committee has outlined over five years are coming to pass, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said from the Opposition Front Bench, with just 92 days to go before an election and 38 days to go before Dissolution. In our complacency, we have let these problems grow and we are finding immense difficulties in each of our constituencies.
	On postal voting, about half a million people have been kicked off the electoral register because they failed to reregister. That is a misfortune for them. Many of us will have been on the doorstep and said, “Hello, I am your Member of Parliament. I can see that you might need a postal vote. Can we give you that postal vote? Can we get that registration for a postal vote for you?” The Member of Parliament has been there and almost given a guarantee that the constituent will have a postal vote, but some of those people will be the very people who will not now be eligible to vote—some may not be in the first flush of youth—because of all the technicalities. We need to make sure we get these messages over and get them over quickly.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the universal postal voting regime was introduced to boost turnout. Why does he suppose that since 2001 turnout has been 59%, 61% and 65%, whereas in previous elections it was 75%, 73% and 78%?

Graham Allen: We live in a democracy and it is the sacred duty of every Member of this House of every party to ensure that as many people register to vote and as many people can vote as is humanly possible. To throw out this red herring of fraud when there has only been a handful of cases—[Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) reminds me, only one case has ended in a successful prosecution. Denying millions of people the right to vote is the biggest fraud we are perpetrating in our democracy and we should not be collaborating on that.

Matthew Offord: The reason why there have been so few prosecutions could be, as we found out in the case of Nigel Kennedy, that there is a limited period in which a prosecution can be brought. That period may expire before the time it takes to get the evidence, and that determines that there will not be a prosecution.

Graham Allen: One case has been proven and taken forward. I want to give a couple of other statistics, and, sadly, there are a lot more zeros in them. Some 7.5 million people were not registered to vote at the last election. That works out at about 10,000 people in each of our constituencies. In fact, in deprived areas, such as my constituency, I am damned sure that it will be more than that—so more than 10,000 of my electorate are not even registered to vote, let alone are not taking up the right to vote. Of those who did register at the last election, 16.5 million people decided not to bother to vote. If we add the non-registered to the ones who did not bother to vote, it comes to more than the number of those who voted Conservative and Labour combined.
	This is a scandal. I am not blaming the Government for this; I am just saying that we as a Parliament need to take this in hand. We as a Parliament need to get people to register. We need to encourage people to vote not just because the techniques are right, but because they feel engaged in their system and believe that decisions are made not just at the Whitehall level, and because they feel they own their democracy and own decision-making, particularly in their own locality.
	The point about EVEL—English votes for English laws—has been thrown into the debate again, but that is a procedural technicality for this House, rather than a question of how we devolve power, as they do in virtually every other western democracy, to people at the grass roots, to seize the opportunity to develop their own ways in their own areas.

Mark Durkan: rose—

Graham Allen: I give way to my distinguished colleague from the Select Committee.

Mark Durkan: On the subject of English votes for English laws, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if the Government continue with the current Act—the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—the seat distribution to the boundary commissions in the next Parliament will be on the basis of reduced registration in England, so there could be fewer English seats in this House and more Scottish and Northern Ireland seats?

Graham Allen: Whenever a colleague in this House hears someone talking about EVEL and English votes they should be reminded that, unlike most democracies, we decide the size of our constituencies not on the number of people they have got, but on the number of people who are registered, and, as I have said, even at the last election 7.5 million were not registered. What a nonsense of a system that is!
	I am going to give one last statistic, which is a slightly happier one. Some say, “People out there aren’t interested in this stuff,” but a world-record number of people replied to a Select Committee consultation on voter engagement. People out there are desperate; they are hungry for engagement. That is why there are so many organisations around. I have a list of a few of them here: Bite the Ballot, Unlock Democracy, the Hansard Society, the
	British Youth Council, Sky’s “Stand Up Be Counted” campaign, Catch 22, the National Union of Students, Involver, UpRising. They all wanted to grab that chance of saying to us that we have got to do better.
	It is not good enough. Sixteen thousand people responded to our report, and the follow-up report, having listened to those 16,000, will be published tomorrow. There will be a debate in this House starting at 1.30 pm for those Members who are not able to speak in today’s debate.
	We must do something about this. If people read the report tomorrow, they will see lots of ways forward on an all-party basis to involve our people in our own democracy.

Gary Streeter: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who speaks with great expertise on this subject. He makes the case that we need to do all we can to get people to register to vote in this country, and I completely agree, but I believe we are doing that by all methods possible, as I shall come on to demonstrate. However, I completely agree with his wider point about engagement; we need to find new ways forward. I will read his report tomorrow with great interest.
	Sadly, there always are and always have been a substantial number of people who do not register to vote—whatever the system, and in every democratic country—no matter what their persuasion. Different figures are bandied about because it is an imprecise science: we can count the people on the register, but we cannot count those who do not register. As of July 2014, before the shift to individual voter registration started, at least 6 million people were not on the register.

Chris Ruane: Seven and a half million.

Gary Streeter: I am talking about 2014.

Chris Ruane: So am I.

Gary Streeter: Goodbye.
	The figure the hon. Gentleman gives is the snapshot of the number of unregistered people as of 1 December. I have to say that he ruins my weekends. He tables at least 400 written questions every week, and I have to spend my weekends reading through the answers. Of course, it is great fun. My wife is convinced that I am having some kind of illicit relationship with him. [Interruption.] Not a pleasant thought.

Chris Ruane: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has just said?

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not think anybody needs to clarify the relationship between you and Mr Streeter.

Gary Streeter: As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a pleasant thought from my point of view.
	The truth is that a vast amount of work is being done around the United Kingdom to get people to register before the general election, but it is important to remember that anyone who is already on the household register and is residing at that address has not been removed as a result of the shift to IER. The Electoral Commission is running a national campaign across the UK to encourage people to register to vote ahead of the 20 April deadline. It will reach all adults, with a focus on groups—already mentioned in this debate—that research has identified are less likely to be registered to vote, such as people who have recently moved home, those who rent their home, young people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities.
	Some of this work is being undertaken with the support of organisations and private companies that represent these communities or have a special reach into them. For example—this is very good news—the Electoral Commission and Facebook have today announced that on national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, every person on Facebook in the UK who is eligible to vote will see a voter registration reminder message in their newsfeed. Some 35 million people use Facebook in the UK every month, which is more than the number who voted at the last general election. This is using innovative methods to reach people and encourage them to vote. We must keep returning to the point that people can now register to vote online. It takes 30 seconds, and the only thing they need is their name—[Interruption.] Yes, I have seen it done. [Interruption.] I was already registered; I was data-matched over. People need their name, address, date of birth—most of us know those things—and national insurance number; ring your mum and find out what it is. If people have those four things, they can register; it takes 30 seconds. This is good news.

Helen Goodman: Ring your mum?

Gary Streeter: I do that every week. I don’t know what the hon. Lady is on about.
	This builds on the important work the Electoral Commission is doing to get the message across that everyone should register to vote. I am also pleased that the commission is strongly supporting national voter registration day—an excellent initiative launched by Bite the Ballot last year—in a number of ways, including by re-launching the “Ballot Box Man” YouTube advert aimed at encouraging young people to register to vote. If you have not seen it, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very entertaining and makes the point extremely well. A wide range of social media activity is being undertaken, including on Twitter and Facebook. A range of resources is being sent out to electoral administrators and the commission’s partners from across the voluntary, public and private sectors to help them get people registered. The commission is also supporting the launch of Operation Black Vote’s bus tour across Great Britain—that also begins on national voter registration day—to get more BME people on the electoral register.

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and we must all celebrate national voter registration day and get involved in it. It seems to me that many of the Opposition’s arguments are not against individual voter registration and that they are about encouraging people to register under the new scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?

Gary Streeter: I do agree with that. We have not focused enough on the responsibility not only of individuals to register to vote but of electoral registration officers, whose job it is to encourage people to register. They are sending out letters, and they should be going door to door. They are being given extra resources to enable that to happen. I believe that a very substantial number of people will join the register between 1 December and 20 April. We would not be having this debate in three months’ time.

Oliver Colvile: rose—

Gary Streeter: I will not give way again if that is okay, as I have a lot to say in the next two minutes.
	This week, on Monday 2 February, the commission’s new national advertising campaign launched a series of online display adverts to highlight the fact that anyone who is not registered will be unable to vote in the general election on 7 May. The adverts provide a direct click-through link to the gov.uk/registertovote page. On the same day, the commission also launched an online campaign across the 20 countries in which UK expatriates are most likely to live, to make expats aware that they might be able to vote and to encourage them to register to do so. The important point has been made several times by Government Members that everyone who is eligible to vote should be encouraged to register, and not simply those in certain groups.
	The commission’s main national public awareness campaign for the UK parliamentary general election will begin on 16 March 2015 in Great Britain and will include television, catch-up TV and online advertising. The commission has set the ambitious target of 1 million additions to the register in Great Britain between 16 March and 20 April, with a further 10,000 in Northern Ireland.

Frank Dobson: We have had targets before.

Gary Streeter: Yes, we have, and the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the Electoral Commission hit its target in the run-up to the last general election. I am pretty confident that it will do so again.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gary Streeter: I cannot give way again; I have only 29 seconds left.
	I hope that the House will recognise that there is a great deal of activity already under way or about to happen that is likely to increase voter registration dramatically. We also have a responsibility ourselves to take our great communication skills to our constituencies and to get the message across to everyone out there: register to vote—don’t lose your voice!

Chris Ruane: I shall start by making the bold statement that if the Conservative proposals on electoral registration had gone ahead in their original form in 2010 and 2011, we would have seen a constitutional coup that would have kept the Tory party in power in this country for a generation. There would have been a two-pronged attack that involved bringing the date for the introduction of individual electoral registration forward by a year. That simple act would have resulted in a total of 35% of the electorate dropping off the register, in addition to the 15% who were already missing from it. Those people would have been the most economically and socially marginalised in the country, and their marginalisation would have been complete with their vote gone.
	The second prong of the attack was to have been the equalisation of constituencies at 75,000 electors per seat, plus or minus 5%. That change would have been carried out while 7.5 million people were missing from the electoral register—the equivalent of 100 missing parliamentary seats.

Meg Hillier: I am concerned that the number of people on the electoral register is used as a proxy for local government funding allocations. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a real concern, especially for the poorer constituencies, which are experiencing the greatest drop-off of all?

Chris Ruane: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	I wish to probe more deeply into the machinations of that grand plan. It is only by looking at what has happened in the recent past that we can find out what would happen over the next few months if the Tories were to get back in.

Sam Gyimah: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Ruane: No, I will not give way.
	Individual electoral registration was introduced by the Labour Government in 2009 with cross-party support. The issue was so sensitive that we sought that cross-party support. The deadline for its introduction was after the latest date for the next general election, which is of course this year. The reason for the long run-in period was that there were already 7.5 million people missing from the register, and we hoped that we could get them back on to it during that five-year period. The Electoral Commission was going to have marking points throughout the period, so that we could implement IER and assess its impact. This cross-party support, this cherished unity, was shattered, as one of the first aims of the coalition agreement, set out on page 27, was:
	“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
	What was this massive electoral fraud that so concerned the Conservatives? Why was it so important that a new IER Bill took precedence over virtually all other Bills at the height of the economic crisis?
	Let us look at the facts and figures concerning electoral fraud. The fraud that so exercised the Conservatives was one case in 2008 and one in 2009. In the six years from 2008 to 2013 there were three cases out of 45 million electors. That was the size of the problem.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Ruane: No. I shall make progress.
	That was the size of the problem—three cases of electoral fraud in six years. The Government, backed up by the Electoral Commission, claim that it is not the numbers—

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he explain to us why the Labour Government decided to introduce IER if not to deal with electoral fraud, which he says does not exist?

Chris Ruane: We introduced it because, although the old system had served us fairly well and quite a high number of people were registered, we thought it was patriarchal and registration should be down to the individual. We did it with cross-party support, cross-party unity.
	Why did the Conservatives go to such trouble to shatter the cross-party support? They knew exactly what they were doing when they rushed the Bill through with undue haste. They hoped that even more poorer voters would drop off the register before the 2015 general election and increase their chances of winning it.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most appalling things that this Government did was to produce a White Paper which referred to voter registration as a lifestyle choice?

Chris Ruane: I am coming to that right now.
	What the Conservatives proposed was not simply bringing forward the date by one year. They had a few more tricks up their sleeves. They wanted to replace the civic duty to register by making it a lifestyle choice. Electors could simply opt out of registering by ticking a box that would be supplied to help them on their way to political disengagement. The Electoral Commission warned that if this happened, it would be assumed that those who did not vote would not register and we would lose 35% of the electorate.
	If the Tories had succeeded, nearly half the electorate would have been missing from the register. Those left off would have been the poorest. This was a blatant, deliberate political act to drive the poorest people off the register. There is a term for it used by right-wingers in America—it is called voter suppression. No vote, no voice: those people were being silenced. The Conservatives were leaving nothing to chance. They planned a few more measures to ensure that those electors were forced off the register. They proposed that there would be no annual canvass—the Minister mentioned this. We introduced an annual canvass. The Minister did not want to introduce an annual canvass, but he was forced to do so. To complete the stitch-up the Conservatives proposed to remove any sanctions for not registering to vote. All these actions together show beyond doubt that the Tories’ direction of travel was to disfranchise as many poor voters as possible.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) who, as shadow minister at the time, summoned civic society to fight this, and we managed to get the worst aspects of the Bill removed. The Lib Dems finally realised that they were being stitched up too. I pay tribute to the work of Chris Rennard in the Lords and others in the Lib Dem party who informed their Front-Bench team of what was going on.
	We were able to stop the worst aspects of the Bill, but even though the Tories were defeated by a mighty alliance of those who wanted to protect democracy, they managed to squeeze one concession from their Lib Dem partners. The Tories proposed that they be given an opportunity, should they win the election, to make a political decision to drop off the unregistered in June this year, six months before the freeze date for the next boundary review. Five million electors would not transfer from household registration to individual registration. These voters would also be removed from the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the local government elections. The Minister has already admitted that he has no guiding principles when he makes this important decision to smash British democracy—no such principles are in place. He failed to answer on this when I asked him at the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and he failed to answer today when I asked him. The press and the public are watching the Minister. Would he like to intervene on that? Where are his guiding principles?

Sam Gyimah: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation to intervene. Whoever is the Minister, and whoever is in government, the decision they make will be taken on the independent advice of the Electoral Commission. That is pretty clear as far as guiding principles are concerned.

Chris Ruane: The Minister wants to have a word with his boss because I do not think he is thinking like that. The Minister was unable to answer this question about guiding principles, so I will tell him what the answer on the guiding principles will be. They will be what they were at the beginning of this Parliament: party political gain for the Conservative party.

Bob Neill: I will not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), whom I suspect sees a conspiracy every time he walks past a bus queue. The reality is that this serious issue deserves rather better than the cynical treatment it has had from the Opposition today.
	The integrity of the register is an integral part of our democracy, and that integrity means not only that those who should be on the register are on it, but that those who should not be are not on it. The level of complacency demonstrated by the Labour party towards that aspect of the equation is nothing less than contemptuous towards our electors.

Wayne David: The Electoral Commission has been quoted on many occasions, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that even it says that it is the perception of fraud, not the actuality of it, that Members are talking about?

Bob Neill: The report last week deals comprehensively with that, and there is another report to which I will refer the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let me deal first with the important issue of why the Labour party really has adopted this attitude. I made an assumption about the backing away from Labour’s previous stance that we saw from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I am sorry he is not in his place, because I know he is a great fan of block votes and he is probably looking for a few in the London Labour party at the moment for the nomination for Mayor—I am sure we could pass that on to him. I assumed it was the normal reaction that we get from the Labour party nowadays. IER was, of course, introduced—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) must contain himself for a moment. IER was, of course, introduced in 2009. What is that magic figure of 2009? Of course, Tony Blair was still around, so it is a legacy of the previous
	—[Interruption.] 
	The Labour party is anxious to forget everything that went before and the reason the previous Government come into it is this: the Labour party had a track record of being extremely flaky on adopting IER.
	The Electoral Commission published a report in 2003 and the Labour Government responded to it in 2004, saying that they were sympathetic to the principle of individual registration but they were not going to implement it—that is the reality. Ever since then, Labour has had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards improving the quality of the electoral register. In the end, the experience in Northern Ireland, where IER certainly produced a reduction in the number of people on the register but also significantly reduced fraud, made it clear that Labour’s position was untenable. The people of Northern Ireland blazed the way for the rest of this country and we should salute the introduction of IER there. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for the rest of the UK as well, and it is no good the Labour party trying to row back from that now.
	The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for this phased implementation of IER. Ironically, that was not originally in the Bill and it was put in only as a result of pressure from the then Opposition parties in the House of Lords. The Labour party was reluctant even to take that step.

Frank Dobson: It is often said that the country would be better governed if there was a consensus, but may I say that I have never been part of the consensus on IER? I thought it was stupid when it was suggested by the stupid Electoral Commission and it has remained stupid ever since. We have had the mad situation that in this democratically elected House we have knowingly voted to reduce the number of people entitled to vote—it has been a disgrace.

Bob Neill: I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a hard-line stance, which is consistent with his political views. There is no doubt that he demonstrated that same consistency when he voted down changes to the boundaries that would have ensured that the electorate of his constituency was broadly more equal with that of mine, but we will not trouble him with that unfortunate matter.
	The fact that the issue of electoral fraud has been dismissed so often by the Opposition suggests that they think it is irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made an important point. The real difficulty that we have is proving cases, and the complacency shown by the Opposition on this matter is breathtaking. The reality is that the six-month time limit makes it particularly difficult to get the evidence required for this type of offence. I hope that, in the future, we will revisit that matter. We should extend the timeline for bringing prosecutions for election offences, and I hope that we can consider that in the new Parliament.
	The very nature of the offence makes it difficult to prosecute, particularly when it involves the head of the household, as it has in the past, filling in forms on behalf of other people. It is also difficult to get people to stand up against members of their own family on whom they may be dependent. That is why there are fewer prosecutions than we would expect given the reality of the situation. That fact is borne out by the useful report, “Electoral Offences since 2010”, which has been issued by the Library of the House of Commons. Members might be interested in looking at it. It was published on 30 July 2014, and details, over a raft of pages, individual instances of allegations of electoral fraud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, it has been difficult to bring many of those cases to a successful prosecution, but the report is, none the less, really worth looking at.
	In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, there have been repeated cases of fraud. Let me say here that I am not trespassing on the current court case. This has nothing to do with the election petition against the mayor. Historically, there have been repeated allegations of malpractice in Tower Hamlets, largely by abuse of the block registration of postal votes. In March 2012, Tower Hamlets removed 127 names from the electoral register. It was not possible to bring a prosecution in that case, but the names were removed because they should not have been on the register. Clearly, malpractice was going on. Some 550 people were registered in 64 properties in the borough. In some cases of registration, there were eight people to a bedroom. It was nonsense, but it is something that the Labour party regard as “fairly minor”. It says that it is a small price to pay. I say that it is not, because it demeans the electoral process. But that does not matter as far as Labour is concerned. Its ersatz view of quantity seems to trump the importance of quality in the elector register. At the end of the day, it is the quality of the electoral register that is most important. If it is not honest, people will lose faith.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that we can drive up the number of people properly on the register through the excellent initiatives of the Electoral Commission. We do not need the specious arguments of the Opposition to do that. We can have safe and secure electoral registration and sensible campaigns to increase voter registration.

Wayne David: rose—

Bob Neill: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to make a little progress as I have little time left.
	My own local authority in Bromley has made great progress with its individual canvasses and maintaining the roll-over on to the register; it can be done. Frankly, we have had nothing but crocodile tears from the Opposition. I have not seen so many crocodile tears since General Nasser built a dam across the River Nile. They should not be detaining the House in the way that they are doing. The Opposition motion is a shambles and a disgrace.

Siobhain McDonagh: Let me first out myself as someone who, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), was completely opposed to individual electoral registration. I accept that I have lost that argument and that we have to move on from where we are now. Where we are now was entirely predictable, but we must now get to a better level of registration.
	I wish to let the House know what is happening in the London borough of Merton, which is at the halfway stage in the transfer to individual electoral registration. Merton has a very effective electoral registration organisation and high levels of registration but is still experiencing difficulties. I would like to publicly acknowledge the long-standing work of our electoral registration officer, Mike Bentley, who recently retired, and welcome Andrew Robertson, who faces his first general election in May.
	As of 1 December 2014, a total of 146,567 people were registered to vote in Merton, compared with 149,615 in 2013, so there has been a drop of about 3,000 over the past year. However, that masks a much more worrying fact. Experience shows that voter turnover in Merton is usually about 23,000. In other words, about 23,000 move out of the borough and leave the register, and roughly another 23,000 move into the borough and join the register. However, in this transition year only 7,000 have joined the register and 10,000 have left. Have fewer people moved, or is the register inaccurate? I believe that about 10% of the electorate are inaccurately registered, based on past movement.
	Also, of the 149,615 on the register at the end of 2013, only 128,000 could be verified. That left about 21,000 unmatched on any of the registers currently used. Using a variety of techniques, the electoral registration department has followed up as many of the 21,000 as it can and brought the number of unmatched voters down to about 6,500—about 5% of the electorate. As we all know, if a voter is unmatched for this year only, they would still be allowed to vote in person. The problem is that a significant number of those unmatched people were previously postal or proxy voters. Many of those people are elderly or disabled. They believe that they have a lifetime entitlement to a postal or proxy vote.
	I am giving this information to the House not to help me in the election, because most of those people have historically voted Conservative. I still want them to have the same opportunity to use their postal or proxy votes to vote for somebody else, because this debate is not about party politics; it is about the essence of our democracy. If we cannot get people to register to vote, we will have an enormous and growing alienated community in our society, and that will not benefit any of us. All of us, of whatever party, whose hearts sink when we hear criticisms of politicians and politics need to do everything we can to get those people on the register, irrespective of who they are or whom they intend to vote for.
	We are only halfway through the process in Merton. In 2016 we face a mayoral election in London. Our community is far more mobile and diverse than Northern Ireland could ever be. It is possible that we will lose huge numbers of people from the register. Some of the alternatives set out in the Opposition’s motion could help, but for me they do not go far enough. I might unite everyone in opposing my suggestion, but I will still continue to make it. I believe that if someone accesses a public service, they should be required to register to vote. If they want the benefits of an advanced welfare democracy, they should sign up to be on the electoral register. If they need to be on the register to get a mortgage or credit card, is it not reasonable for them to need to be on it to get a driving licence, access tax credits or join a library? All those things are about a social contract: something for something, not something for nothing. Whether people vote is up to them, but it is our job to persuade them to do so. The sheer act of citizenship needed to be on the register should be required if someone is to access the services of the state.

David Ward: I am somewhat disappointed by the motion, because it over-eggs the pudding to some degree. It does not recognise that this process was started by the previous Government but has been picked up and progressed by this Government. Labour Members began the whole process—I welcome that and have congratulated them on it many times—and we are now successfully delivering on it. That is a good thing.
	There is still a lot of work to do before the 2015 election and before IER is fully introduced. The motion calls for more to be done to tackle under-registration, without any recognition of how much effort and money has been put into doing that. It is curmudgeonly not to recognise that that effort has been made. The conspiracy theory that this is all about removing poor people from the register is not compatible with that huge effort and with the funding that has been made available to ensure that they are given the opportunity to be put on the register.

Nick Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are missing important sources of voter data? For example, if they used information from credit reference agencies such as Experian, they could boost registration considerably. Does he accept that that would be a worthwhile thing to do?

David Ward: The pilots have identified the best ways of getting the most people registered, although the system can always be refined and made better. There seems to be an assumption that the previous registers were perfect, but in areas of high fraud that was simply not the case.
	Eighty-seven per cent. of people have successfully been moved on to the electoral register. Yes, plenty still needs to be done, and that is why I agree with many parts of the motion. We need to tackle registration for the hard-to-reach groups and to make sure that EROs are doing the very best they can to ensure that as many people are on the register as possible. The reduction in the voting age that I hope will happen in future means that we need to do many of the things suggested in relation to schools and colleges. That work is being done through the all-party group on voter registration.
	Part of the reason for implementing the new IER procedure was to increase the accuracy of the register. Those who represent an area like mine will know just how necessary that was, particularly in helping to deal with voter fraud. In many cases, not even the new system will bring about changes to the voter fraud that takes place as a result of certain behaviour and the failure of political parties to impose strong discipline on their own activists. In Bradford, 88% of people are automatically registered under the data-matching system, yet we are still likely to have problems with postal vote fraud in particular. The problem we have experienced is not that people are not legitimately registered to vote in a household, but that postal votes are collected and filled out on behalf of constituents or that unacceptable pressure is put on individuals to vote in a particular way, as court cases have identified.
	As well as ensuring the accuracy of the register, we need to ensure that the police take seriously and investigate cases of fraud that are reported to them. Too often, the thought in the mind the police has been, “Well, they’re all at it,” and it has not been taken as seriously as it should be. In Bradford in the past, candidates of all parties have been required to sign a pledge stating that they will not take part in voter fraud. That is how serious the situation is in places like Bradford.
	Between now and the election, work needs to go on. Bite the Ballot has been mentioned and I will be on a bus—which we are paying for, not the Government—going around the constituency tomorrow for national voter registration day. Last summer, we took the bus out and registered 250 young people in our constituency. That is where the effort should be going. That is the effective way of ensuring that we get people on a register that we can be satisfied with and that is more accurate.

Kevan Jones: Let me make it quite clear that the Labour Government introduced the notion of individual electoral registration and the motion before us in no way backtracks from that, no matter how much bluster we hear from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the Minister for the Constitution, who should look at the detail of how his Department is working. By falling back on the Electoral Commission, the Minister is making a big mistake.
	I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The original idea behind the process was to drive down the register, and we do not need to look too far to see where the Conservative party got it from. In the United States, the Republican party is doing exactly the same thing.
	The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) rightly emphasised what is being done to try to get people, particularly young people, on the register. I commend all those efforts, but it is not about working harder, to use the old BT phrase, but about working smarter. The Government are not doing that and I am afraid that the Electoral Commission is not doing it either.
	The Minister asked why the focus was on young people, and I can give him the answer. According to the House of Commons Library, only 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds are registered to vote, whereas 94% of those aged over 65 are. I want to refer to one issue, which is the responsibility of the Minister and the Electoral Commission—he cannot get away from it—and that is the drop in the number of 18-year-olds who have been registered, particularly attainers.
	In my constituency in 2012, there were 619 attainers on the register. In 2013 there were 701, in 2014 there were 632, and this year there are 114.

Chris Ruane: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was the MP who discovered the drop in the number of attainers. Is he aware that 87% of attainers were registered nationally last year whereas this year the figure has gone down to 52%?

Kevan Jones: I am, and I shall explain why.
	The drop in North Durham is quite clear and we must ask why it has happened. We all know that 1997 was a very strong and passionate political year for this country. We could put the fall down to a drop in the birth rate in 1997—clearly there was a lack of passion in North Durham!—but that is obviously not the case. I wrote to my local returning officer about this, and I must pay tribute to Durham county council for the work it is trying to do to get through the minefield laid by the Electoral Commission and the Government. The response I received says that under the old system, where the head of household registered, a section of the form asked for the name of anyone who was 17 and would attain the age of 18 within the next year to be added. The new letter that was sent out to verify who was in the household included a sentence asking for the name of anyone it was thought should be registered to vote, but there was no reference to 17-year-olds. The Minister likes to hide behind the Electoral Commission, but, frankly, on occasions I find the Electoral Commission completely incompetent. On this occasion, it is.
	I have raised the question directly with the Minister outside the House. I accept that he has given extra money for registration to councils such as Durham, but that is no good. When I went to county hall last Friday, I saw all the boxes of new letters ready to go out. I looked at the letter, and it does not cover 17-year-olds. When I asked the returning officer why not, he said that the council had to use the letter agreed by the Minister and the Electoral Commission. This was a missed opportunity to correct a basic problem.
	In my constituency and other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has shown, the problem will lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of 17-year-olds not being registered, although they will attain the age of 18 this year and would be entitled to vote. That is a scandal, but something that could have been sorted out quite easily. Frankly, it is due to a combination of the Minister and the Electoral Commission. I am not surprised by the Minister because I do not think he has a great grasp of most the subjects for which he is responsible, but one would expect a bit more from the Electoral Commission.
	There is an opportunity to put this matter right. Most local authorities know their 16 and 17-year-olds, because they are registered with them for education purposes. I challenge the Minister to instruct all local authorities, with money behind this if necessary, to use such data to ensure that 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 this year are actually registered. That must be done, otherwise many 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before 7 May will assume that they will get a vote, but will not get it.
	I make no criticism of the hard work that has been done by a host of organisations to try to get young people registered. I have written to my local schools and publicised the issue locally to ensure that we can get as many as possible of those 17-years-old on the register.
	In a democracy, it is important to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That was why the Labour Government brought in the process, which I support. It was done on a cross-party basis, and that consensus should have been maintained. When the Conservatives came to power as part of the coalition, they shattered that consensus and departed from it for their own reasons. We have heard a lot of guff about fraud. I love the idea that the only reason we have not had many fraud cases is the time limits, but my answer would be, “Well, change the time limits.”
	I refer hon. Members to the Electoral Commission’s own evidence. In 2004, we had an all-postal ballot in Durham as part of the pilot.

Sam Gyimah: Surely you would trust the Electoral Commission.

Kevan Jones: I do not trust the Electoral Commission on occasion, but in this case I do. Its report said that there was no evidence of major fraud in the administration of postal votes. In a local council by-election in my constituency, the change resulted in a turnout of 67%. A problem of turnout was highlighted in certain communities, but that was not a reason for binning it entirely. However, the Conservative party and the Daily Mail frothed at the mouth about postal voting being open to widespread fraud, for which there was no evidence whatsoever.
	I ask the Minister to address the issue of 17-year-olds, which I have previously raised with him. We have missed the opportunity of doing so in the recent letters, but something needs to be done before registration closes on 20 April.

Stewart Jackson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is an agreeable chap. I can only assume that his conspiracy theory arises from his upbringing in the murky world of Labour and trade union politics in the north-east. Like his friend the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), he sees a conspiracy round every corner.
	I have been in politics for 30 years, but for Labour Members it is always about politics, not about what is in the national interest or what is right. Even when they start off by doing what is right, proper and decent to address an issue, they turn around a few years later and say, “We don’t agree with it any more, because it does not suit our narrow partisan interests.” How do they have the gall?
	The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd trooped through the Lobby to vote against fair and equal boundaries. Along the coast from his constituency, Arfon has an electorate of 49,000, while my next-door constituency of Cambridgeshire North West has almost 100,000 electors. He considers that to be democratic, but it is not.

Chris Ruane: When making seats equal was being railroaded through, 7.5 million people were missing from the register, which would be the equivalent of 100 extra parliamentary seats.

Stewart Jackson: I am not wholly convinced that the Labour party has ever taken electoral integrity as seriously as it should have done. The hon. Gentleman talks about the criminal cases over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) alluded to the fact that we simply do not know how much electoral registration stuffing there has been, because EROs and local authorities have not had the capacity to check that across the country. Under the Labour party, we saw electoral malpractice and criminal activity in Pendle, Derby, Birmingham, Bradford, Slough and Peterborough, to give just a few examples.
	Let us be honest: this debate is a wasted opportunity for the Labour party. It is inviting us to conclude that an impact assessment of its Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, in which individual electoral registration was originally contained, would have shown no reduction in the number of people registering. Of course that is not the case. I was in the House at the time and we all knew that there would be a reduction after the first major change for many years.
	The Labour party now comes back and says that this is an evil, wicked Tory plot to drive poor people off the register. The crocodile tears were not flowing when it blocked servicemen and women—people who were fighting and dying for our country—from coming back, casting their ballots and using the universal franchise. Labour Members were not worried then. Now they are full of crocodile tears and faux outrage over the patronising notion that their voters are not on the register.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) bemoans the situation with older people and postal votes. Does she think that people who are older are so stupid that they cannot fill out forms? Before the 2001 changes, older people and pensioners were able to fill out forms in cases of ill health, if they were working away or if they were in other circumstances. More to the point, the turnout was much higher.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: I will not give way to the hon. Lady.

Jenny Chapman: You named her.

Stewart Jackson: I named her, but I have named a lot of people in this debate.
	The Labour party’s problem is simple: it is useless Labour councils. Those useless Labour councils are being given a lot of taxpayers’ money to do the job properly. They should be canvassing, registering people, ensuring that the right people are on the register and ensuring that there is electoral integrity in the register. If Labour Members have problems in Bristol, County Durham and the London borough of Merton, all of which are controlled by the Labour party, they should take them up with local people.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Stewart Jackson: I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I have little time.
	If this were a plot, we would not be putting so many public resources into the process. There has been £500,000 to boost confidence in the electoral system, £2.5 million has been spent on students and overseas voters, £6.8 million has been given to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government for physical canvassing for registration, and there has been work on universities and housing associations as part of the Cabinet Office’s £9.8 million funding.
	We accept that some people will be missed in the DWP data-matching. In the central ward in my constituency, about 40% of people were missed. We understand that, but it is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities to find the missing voters by physical door-to-door canvassing. In that way, we will have a full register with integrity.
	For most of the time, the previous Labour Government were content to see the potential for electoral register stuffing.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Jackson: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I have two more brief points to make. In considering this issue, the Minister should look again at bespoke funding to investigate improprieties and criminal activities in respect of election fraud, because it is difficult for a small constabulary to cope with such matters. We must look again at the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of ID at polling stations and the ability to challenge voters in cases of impersonation. That is an important issue.
	Finally, the Government have done an excellent job—largely, I admit, with cross-party support—on postal vote integrity, which is still an important issue. For example, Peterborough city council threw out one in five applicants for postal votes in Central ward in May 2014. Fraud is still a problem and we must be vigilant and protect the electoral integrity of our political system. We should ensure that the right people are on the electoral register and have the opportunity to vote. That is above party politics, and it is a shame that the Labour party cannot rise above partisan point scoring in the national interest.

Paul Blomfield: I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but after that nonsense it is not, so I will not.
	I represent more students by far than any other Member of the House—36,000 according to the latest census. They are not the only group that contributes to the enormous churn in the electoral register in my constituency, but I will concentrate my remarks on them. I am worried about their disfranchisement not simply because of the coming election, but because of the impact of their exclusion from the register on the next boundary review, which we know will be conducted on the basis of the register as it stands in December 2015.
	The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) challenged Labour Members on the principle of the equalisation of constituencies. We would embrace that principle but it must be on a legitimate basis, and the current register already contains deeply inequitable constituencies. There are many worse examples, but if we compare my constituency, Sheffield Central, with that of the Deputy Prime Minister next door in Sheffield Hallam, we see that the number of registered voters seems broadly comparable—the difference is about 5,000 people. However, 17% of households in my constituency have nobody registered, but that figure is just 4% in Sheffield Hallam. Sheffield Central has a population of 115,000 people, and Sheffield Hallam just 89,000—a variation of 26,000, which will be made only worse by the way the Government are dealing with IER.
	Students are not the only group but they are a significant one, so to avoid that situation locally I worked with both universities to integrate electoral registration into the student enrolment process. We developed a system at the university of Sheffield for the 2014 entry which, if successful, will be rolled out to Sheffield Hallam university in 2015. I am sorry that the Minister misinterpreted my earlier remarks to attack Sheffield Hallam university for its low level of registration. Changing systems are complicated and we sought to work with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage higher education institutions across the country to adopt a better system.
	I am grateful for the support of the Cabinet Office for the pilot that we have been developing in Sheffield. The system requires students to make a positive decision about whether they wish to register to vote as a required step in their enrolment. Last September the scheme was successful, with around 64% of students choosing to register, as the Minister highlighted. The system then took people to the next step, which required them to fill in their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of people dropped out of the system because they did not have ready access to their NI number and did not want to halt their enrolment. The situation looked bleak with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to register.
	Again, credit is due to the Cabinet Office, because new guidance issued on 10 December allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using only student enrolment data. Therefore in late December and January, our EROs added 7,000 students to the electoral register, even though they did not provide their NI numbers. That is sensible because universities have clearly collected significant and substantial information to verify student identity as part of their registration process.
	The Minister said earlier that he is looking at ways of using data collected for other purposes to construct the register, so will he answer one specific question? It would be simpler to roll out this system across universities than to seek national insurance numbers in the first place, especially given that the Government are clearly happy for people not to have them. Would it not be better, therefore, to have a simple system in which we ask students, “Do you want to register to vote?” and then use the information the university has collected as sufficient verification?

Sam Gyimah: indicated assent.

Paul Blomfield: I see the Minister nodding. If he will confirm that in his winding-up speech, it would be a significant step forward in encouraging student registration across the country.
	Finally, there is a wider lesson to be learned. With commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, we need to transfer those lessons to other organisations, such as schools, housing providers, residential homes, doctors’ surgeries and so on, to widen the register.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I want to pick up where he left off—on young people.
	One of the worst things about the big fall in the number of people on the register is the massive reduction in the number of young people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said, if young people do not get the habit of voting when they first can, they are highly unlikely to take it up later in life. In a written parliamentary question, I asked the Minister, who is not quite in his place,
	“how many people have been informed that their application for inclusion on the…register was not valid because their national insurance number was not provided”.
	He replied:
	“Failure to provide a National Insurance number does not result in an application being declared invalid.”
	He does not know what is going on. I have a letter from an ERO in response to a young person’s application to register to vote. It read, “Thank you for your recent application to register. Unfortunately, I am unable to process your application because it was incomplete. The following information is required and was incorrect or missing: national insurance number.”
	There are 440,000 young people still at school who turned 18 between 1 September and 1 May. The person that letter was sent to could not register because she did not have her national insurance number. I do not know how many hon. Members spend a lot of time with teenagers, but a letter with a young person’s national insurance number arrives before they are 16, and we are suggesting that two years later teenagers will know where that letter is and have kept it in a safe place. I cannot think of anything more naïve. How many young people will have lost it?

Gary Streeter: What about the parents?

Helen Goodman: Yes, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the “ring mum” solution before. How outrageous. What about young people in care? What about young people estranged from their families? What a disgraceful attitude to large numbers of young people.
	We rang the council to find out what to do. It suggested that the person bring their passport, which costs £72. It suggested a driving licence, which costs £34. These are all things that young people do not have.

Gary Streeter: They don’t have passports?

Helen Goodman: I tabled a PQ to the man who is commenting from a sedentary position now asking how young people were supposed to know what their national insurance number was. His answer was: payslips and correspondence with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. The truth is that 18-year-olds who are still at school do not have payslips or correspondence with HMRC or DWP. The Government have not thought this through.
	The other thing the council asked for was a council tax bill. No 18-year-old gets a council tax bill. This is completely incompetent. Ministers have not thought this through. I went to the website to find out what to do. Nobody can get their national insurance number on the website. That is not how it works. They can, however, ring a very nice man on: 0300 200 3500. They will get a very nice man with a lovely Lancashire accident, and he will put their national insurance number in the post.
	The suggestion that we have heard from Ministers that this information is readily available is totally naïve. The DWP Ministers who are responsible for giving people their national insurance numbers and informing them cannot even be bothered to turn up and sit on the Bench for this debate. They have a central role. The truth is that it displays all the attitudes of DWP Ministers to young people: they want to take the housing benefit off 18 to 21-year-olds; now they want to take the vote from those very same young people. It is a total disgrace. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Has the hon. Lady completed her speech? We are grateful to her.

Jim Shannon: It is good to contribute. First of all, right hon. and hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, have been very kind in referring to Northern Ireland’s experience. It provided an important example for the rest of the United Kingdom. If I may, I would like to provide a little more of the Northern Ireland perspective.
	On electoral registration, our aim should be to have an open, honest, transparent and, more importantly, accessible system so that those who want to vote are able to do so without difficulty. We do not need any more reason to deter or make difficult the process of voting, and there are obvious worries that the plans for individual voter registration will let many slip through the cracks. We also have to protect our democracy from fraud, and individual voter registration is one way of doing that, as many Members have suggested.
	Before the Northern Ireland initiative, it was evident that, as the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland reported, there had been a significant and worrying decline in both the accuracy and completeness of Northern Ireland’s electoral register. On 1 April 2012, post-general election, the register was 78% accurate, with one in five entries relating to people who were no longer resident at the address. An estimated 400,000 people were not registered at the correct address. Understandably, we had an ambition to address that issue.
	It is valuable to have discussions in the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular in the hope that through our respective Governments we can learn from each other about what makes for best practice.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best initiatives in Northern Ireland has been the voter electoral identity card? People can apply for it, and it is free. It has a photograph and other identity marks on it, and it allows people to carry that credit card into the electoral booth to prove who they are and maintain their vote without molestation.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Yes, that is another example of something that was done in Northern Ireland, and it is important to note that it provides a free opportunity to get voter identification.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one reason the registration effort in schools has been so successful is precisely that the electoral ID card is a strong incentive. It is not necessarily that pupils are overwhelmingly committed to voting for our party!

Jim Shannon: I would not necessarily go with that opinion, because when the pupils congregate for the cards and we help them to go and get them, I think we will gain from that. I am ever the optimist, as you know, Mr Speaker, and I am sometimes referred to as a “glass half full” person. I am conscious of the time, so I will continue.
	It is important to address fraud. There have been examples in west Belfast in the past where up to half a dozen people were living in blocked up houses. I do not know how they got in there. If one had four legs, it was easy to get in, but not so easy for those with two legs. That is all I can say. It is acknowledged that we are likely to have a higher volume of voters in the general election—the contest to watch—so for that reason we need accessibility along with accurate data.
	In 2012, Northern Ireland had an accuracy of 78% in its electoral registers. That clearly showed what we could do. The electorate of Northern Ireland grew by 9.8% between 2007 and 2012, in comparison with only 2.8% for United Kingdom and the rest of the mainland. Big steps were taken; we moved forward very quickly.
	It is now a given that we must talk about technology in all strategies for engaging with and reaching the public. The online system is one thing we have introduced and it has been successful, although I think we could do more with it. Over 90% of responders gave positive feedback, so there have been issues that we have been able to deal with.
	The system of voter registration in Northern Ireland for those at further education colleges has been good. There needs to be leafleting and marketing in our universities and colleges and our local businesses, and at grass-roots campaigning levels. Visuals and sign-up drives are also very important.
	I urge Ministers to bear it in mind that, in the light of the upcoming elections and the fact that the nation’s eyes will be on how we run the votes, we should be ready for scrutiny and accountability.

Stephen Twigg: Today’s debate comes at an important time. There are just 92 days until the general election. As we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has done fantastic work throughout the current Parliament and before, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million eligible adults were missing from the electoral register. Our estimate, based on local authority information, is that a further 1 million people have fallen off the register since then.
	Throughout the debate, the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers have shown extraordinary complacency. It has been a case of “Blame the local councils”, “blame the Electoral Commission”, “blame the universities”, or “blame the voters themselves.” Conservative Members have wanted to blame everyone except the Government, whose rushed timetable has led to the present position, as the Labour party has said consistently ever since the
	Government introduced legislation earlier in this Parliament. It is simply not good enough. It is scandalous that, in the 21st century, people will turn up at polling stations and be turned away. We all have a responsibility to do more to ensure that our democracy is not undermined in that way.
	Let me be fair: the Government have taken some steps that we welcome, and which are welcomed in the motion. Online registration is hugely welcome, as is the opening up of new data sets for electoral registration officers and new guidance on student registration. Today the Minister announced the provision of £2.5 million, and we welcome that as well. However, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us more about how the money will be allocated, and, in particular, will tell us whether fantastic organisations such as Bite the Ballot will be eligible to bid for it. I think that such organisations know better than any of us how to reach the young people who, as has been pointed out today, are falling off the register.
	Bite the Ballot has done amazing work. Anyone who has observed its work in schools—as I have, in both England and Scotland—will know that students walk into the classroom apathetic and uninterested, and walk out debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty or priorities for public spending. I greatly welcome its efforts, and specifically welcome tomorrow’s fantastic national voter registration day, of which we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). As I said, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million people were missing from the register, and we estimate that a further 1 million are missing from the new register.
	As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), students in higher education are disproportionately affected by the change. That is why, in the motion, we suggested allowing universities and colleges to block-register students in halls of residence. I pay tribute to the remarkable work that he has done, working with his local authority and the universities in Sheffield.

Sam Gyimah: And the Cabinet Office.

Stephen Twigg: I was about to say that. If the Minister had been a little more patient, he would have heard me say that I welcome the new guidance from the Cabinet Office, which allows electoral registration officers to register certain individuals if a national insurance number is not or cannot be submitted, and has been verified by data that are within the Government’s guidelines. As my hon. Friend told us, Sheffield university has been able to add 7,000 student electors to the register as a result. However, although it is hugely welcome, the guidance came very late. It would have been so much better if the excellent practice at Sheffield university could have been shared by every university.
	As the motion says, we believe that the Government should allow universities to register students en bloc, but, at the very least, will the Government write to all vice-chancellors reiterating the new guidance and, in particular, offering that excellent case study of Sheffield university, so that, even at this late stage, we can boost registration in time for the election in May?
	Perhaps the most significant and disturbing development is the one that was cited by my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Bishop Auckland
	(Helen Goodman): the apparent massive decline in the number of attainers—17-year-olds who will reach the age of 18 during the coming year. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) reminded the House of the figure for Liverpool. Last year, there were 2,300 attainers on Liverpool’s electoral register; this year, there are just 76. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described this as a scandal. It is indeed a scandal. The Minister said, rightly, that we should learn from Northern Ireland. One thing we can learn from Northern Ireland is this: the schools initiative in Northern Ireland sees electoral registration officers visiting schools and colleges in their area to encourage young people to register, and requires the schools and colleges to give information to the electoral registration officer so they have the data on school students that can then be used for registration purposes.
	In Northern Ireland, when the previous Labour Government began the transition to IER, we saw a massive fall in the number of attainers on the first register—it was very similar to what we have seen in England, Scotland and Wales this year. It fell from 10,000 to 244, which is an even more dramatic fall than the one we have seen in Liverpool. After the schools initiative was introduced, the number of attainers registered went up dramatically to a higher level than was achieved under the household register. My understanding is that on the latest register in Northern Ireland, two thirds of attainers are now registered. That is actually higher than the proportion under the old system of household registration.

Sam Gyimah: In Northern Ireland, registration rates plummeted to something like 11% when IER was introduced. In the UK, nine out of 10 have automatically been transferred to IER. The two situations are not similar. The reason why we have managed to achieve that is because we have focused on the annual canvass, which Northern Ireland did not.

Stephen Twigg: We are talking about the very specific issue of attainers: those who will reach the age of 18 in the current year. The drop-off in Liverpool, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred to, also happened in Northern Ireland, and perhaps even more dramatically, according to the figures I was given. My point relates directly to the motion. If we adopt the Northern Ireland schools initiative in England, Scotland and Wales, we can reverse this. That is no reversal of IER. It is still individual registration, but it is about going into schools and colleges. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the Minister say, “Do it.” Will Ministers stand up and commit to introducing the legislation immediately? We will support it. Please, bring forward the legislation to enable England, Scotland and Wales to achieve what has been done in Northern Ireland.

Sam Gyimah: EROs, who are responsible for maintaining the register in their local areas, can go to schools and talk about registering. They do not need legislation to do that. The only thing legislation will do is increase the burden on schools, which we do not want to do.

Stephen Twigg: The whole point of the schools initiative is that the duty is on the schools and colleges, as well as on the electoral registration officers. That is why it has worked in Northern Ireland and that is what we would need here. I repeat what I said—perhaps the Minister’s colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons can respond to this in his closing remarks. If we share a concern across the House on this, it is not too late—it is quite late, but it is not too late—for us to pass legislation for England, Scotland and Wales that matches the schools initiative in Northern Ireland, and reverse that appalling, scandalous and dramatic fall in the number of attainers on the electoral register.
	We are in a position where emergency action is urgently needed. From a position that was far, far from perfect previously, with 7.5 million not on the register, we have seen a further drop-off. We have until 20 April: two-and-a-half months. We are proposing two very straightforward changes that could make a real difference: allow live-in institutions to block-register their residents; and immediately introduce the schools initiative so that we can boost youth participation. Those two changes alone could see hundreds of thousands of people added back on to the register. Tomorrow is national voter registration day. We cannot, surely, afford to have a lost generation of young people disconnected from our democratic process. We are arguing for two very, very simple reforms. If the Government join us, we will support them in implementing those reforms. I urge them to do so today.

Tom Brake: The debate has been important and wide-ranging. We have heard many analyses of the issues we face and a number of possible solutions. The problem of under-registration did not happen overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight. Its causes are complex and are linked to increased population mobility and disengagement from traditional party politics. It is nonsense to suggest, as I am afraid many Opposition Members did, that this Government do not take the issue of under-registration seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.
	As the Minister for the Constitution made clear, the Government are committed to enhancing both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register. That is why I cannot support the idea of block registration. The whole purpose of individual electoral registration is that it is individual; it is not block registration. It is not people being put on a register who do not know that that has happened.
	The decline in the completeness of the registers which we saw between 2000 and 2010—in other words, under the last Government—has been arrested. The most recent research by the Electoral Commission shows that levels of electoral registration have stabilised since 2011. I hope we can all welcome that, but it is of course not enough.

Chris Ruane: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The figure was 7.5 million under Labour and it is 7.5 million now. Is he aware that the EC’s aim is still to have 7.5 million people on the register by 2019? Does that not show a lack of ambition by the EC?

Tom Brake: I think that Members on both sides of the House would like the Electoral Commission to achieve much more than that, and of course that is why the Government have set out £14 million of spending, which I am going to come to, to boost registration.
	We have taken a number of vital and novel steps to transform electoral registration in this country. Online registration, which has been welcomed by everyone, was introduced for the first time last year and makes registering to vote easier than ever. Of course young people in particular, who spend a significant percentage of their time online and are very familiar with using systems online, will be able to use that very easily. It is easier, too, for people to encourage others to register, simply by sharing a link to the gov.uk website.

Nick Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) showed how difficult it is for young people to know their national insurance number. What action are the Government going to take to ensure that 16 to 18-year-olds know their NI number so that they can register to vote, and thereby deal with this problem?

Tom Brake: First, as the hon. Gentleman may know, EROs can advise on alternative sources of that information, and I am sure that best practice in helping young people in that respect will be disseminated. I should also say that given that the Labour party supports, as I do, the idea of young people being able to vote at 16, I am a little worried that Labour Members seem to think that young people are completely incapable of keeping any records themselves.
	Last month the Government announced a further package of funding of up to £10 million to support activities to maximise registration.

Helen Goodman: rose—

Tom Brake: I will make a little more progress.
	That was on top of the £4.2 million invested last year. The Labour party has rightly wanted to know some of the detail of that, and I will come on to that. Most of this money has already been distributed to EROs, to support their work. Earlier today we announced how the rest of the funding will be used to encourage traditionally under-registered groups to register. If this was part of a Government conspiracy to stop either young people or poorer people registering, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members, then I do not understand why we would have spent £14 million over the last two years on trying to boost registration.
	The funding will be provided to a number of national organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens Advice, Citizens UK, Homeless Link, the National Housing Federation, Mencap, Operation Black Vote and UK Youth. Many of these organisations work directly with the groups of people the Labour party has suggested the Government are trying to deny the right to vote.

Kevan Jones: I acknowledge the money being given to councils such as Durham to send out “cleansing” letters, which they are doing next week, but why was reference to 17-year-olds missed off those letters? That was not up to Durham county council; that is the letter it had to use, which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed and the EC has used.

Tom Brake: My understanding is that the Electoral Commission provides guidance that the EROs then act on, but they do have some leeway in how they interpret it. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue four times today and clearly wants a response, I will ensure that he gets a written reply.
	I have listed the organisations that are going to work very actively on promoting voter registration among the people they work with. They have direct experience of working with unregistered groups and insight into what works. The £2.5 million campaign is funded from the £10 million announced in January to increase voter registration rates. From this we will also be funding student bodies, including the National Union of Students. As I said earlier, if the Government intended to stop students registering, as some of the more overheated Opposition Members have suggested, we would hardly be funding the NUS.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the Minister congratulate Sean Goulding, John Treacy, Nathan Coe and Mitchell Murdoch—from Carshalton Boys Sports college, in his constituency—who, unfunded, are running their campaign for first-time voters, which can be found on Twitter at #ftvote?

Tom Brake: I am of course very happy to support that initiative, as I am indeed doing.
	As a number of Members have highlighted, national voter registration day, organised by Bite the Ballot, which I have worked with, takes place tomorrow. Events will be held up and down the country and I urge everyone here in the Chamber to do what they can to support this and similar initiatives. Of course, we all have at our fingertips the ability—through the many tweets Members send out, through Facebook postings, through the e-mails we send out—to encourage young people to register to vote, and we should all be participating in that.
	Tomorrow, the Electoral Commission’s overseas voter registration day marks the launch of its activities over the coming months to encourage British citizens overseas to register and to vote. The Ministry of Defence will also be launching its annual information campaign for the armed forces tomorrow—the start of a range of activity to encourage service personnel and their families to ensure they are registered to vote ahead of the general election.

Helen Goodman: As well as having a publicity campaign with the telephone number for national insurance numbers, why does the Minister not change the letter so that when people get it, they know that they will need it when they register to vote? No mention is made of that at the moment.

Tom Brake: I am very happy to take that point on board and see whether it can be acted on.
	The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will be publishing its report on voter engagement, and it will no doubt include a range of thoughtful recommendations for the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that the use of photo ID might be appropriate, but the PCRC has recommended that the Government do not adopt the Electoral Commission’s suggestion that people take photo ID to the polling station.
	There will be things the next Government can do further to modernise electoral registration in this country.
	In the time left I will try to respond to some of the specific points that were made. This is all about ensuring that the electoral register is accurate. That is what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) wants, and that is what we are trying to do. On attainers in Liverpool, I have concerns that the best practice that exists in some local authorities is clearly not being picked up by others. My own local authority has successfully exchanged census information from schools with the ERO to ensure that a very significant percentage of young people at school are now on the register. The small number who are not are being individually chased by local authorities to ensure that that happens. So it can be done, and in fact, an EROs conference is taking place today at which I am sure some of these issues will be debated.
	Yes, we should give special focus to young people, but it is worth pointing out that we will not support the proposed legal requirement for EROs to go into schools. Of course, there are local authorities such as mine where the issue is not registering young people to vote but ensuring that older people in care homes are registered. Forcing EROs to go into schools, where there is not a problem, would tie down resources, which could result in there being insufficient resources to enable them to focus on the areas that they need to focus on. Clearly they have the ability to go into schools now; there is no need for the law to be changed to enable them to do it. We would of course encourage all schools to be participating in this regard. As I have said, there are things that the next Government—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 216, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the Serjeant at Arms confirmed to me that the former Member for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhne, had applied for and been granted a parliamentary pass. Given the low esteem with which many Members of this House are held by our constituents in regard to poor behaviour, is there any method that we can use to rescind that application to ensure that someone who is a convicted criminal cannot freely walk around the Palace of Westminster?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. That said I will, if I may, make two points. First, these are matters dealt with by an established process under the auspices of the Serjeant at Arms, and although I do not cavil at the hon. Gentleman having an opinion on the matter, we do not discuss security related matters on the Floor of the Chamber. Secondly, I put it on the record that, although the hon. Gentleman has a view that he has expressed with great alacrity, there is also the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which is on the statute book. I note what he says and I understand his concern and no one will deny him the right to his point of view, but we will leave it there for tonight.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I inquire whether there is any way within the rules of order that I can draw attention to a possible misprint on the Order Paper to the House of Commons relating to the cross-party early-day motion 757 on defence spending, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), along with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and about a dozen others including me? It reads as follows:
	“That this House believes that the UK faces a growing and ever more complex range of current and future threats…and supports the UK devoting at least 20% of its gross domestic product to defence.”
	When I signed the early-day motion, I was under the impression that I was supporting 2%. It is beyond even my wildest dreams to have 20%, but a figure in between would not be unacceptable.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He inquired whether there was a mechanism within the rules of order. As he well knows, there is, and he has just used it. It was 31 years three months ago that I first met the hon. Gentleman. All I will say about him tonight is that once a propagandist who seizes his moment, always a propagandist who seizes his moment.

Rory Stewart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a serious point underlying this matter, which is that the 2% figure is indeed what the UK Government have encouraged every other NATO country to contribute of GDP to defence. This 2% figure is essential both to UK national security and to our international reputation.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed the 2% point.

Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr Speaker: If Sir Gerald Howarth really must make a point of order, I suppose that we must hear him.

Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it that there needs to be an investigation. Clearly, the Table Office is under the impression that those right hon. and hon. Members have suggested 20%. I have to say that I could not possibly cavil at that. It seems to be the very minimum that we should be spending on defence in view of what has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Chairman of the esteemed Defence Committee. Will you, Mr Speaker, confirm with the Table Office that it has accurately recorded that which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled?

Mr Speaker: I have always known that the hon. Gentleman is no great advocate of increased public expenditure, but defence tends to be an exception. He has made his own point in his own way.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You talk about the main act, but is this not an appropriate overture for the main act?
	After all the Scottish people are determined to stay in the Union precisely because they want to maintain Trident.

Mr Speaker: That may be so. We will leave it there. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Protected Disclosures (Extension of Meaning of Worker) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.—(DrThérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rehabilitation of Offenders

That the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.—(DrThérèse Coffey.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Monday 9 February, the provisions of Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to
	(1) the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015 and the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of those Motions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions, and
	(2) the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of those Motions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions; and proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

SCOTTISH REPRESENTATION IN THE UNION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

Gordon Brown: I asked for this debate on the constitution this evening because in the run-up to the election, when other issues—the national health service, the economy, national security and defence—will clearly be pre-eminent considerations, it is doubtful whether there is any other way over the next two months that this House can give detailed consideration to a set of constitutional challenges that, if not thought through or if mishandled, will in time threaten the very existence of the United Kingdom.
	I am not here as an advocate of the status quo. I start by recognising that this House of Commons is England’s Parliament as well as the United Kingdom’s and that we should agree a Commons Committee reform that allows for detailed debate on English-only measures by only English Members. With reform of the Lords, reform of regional and local government, reform of the voting system and reform of the Commons itself also part of the queue of complex, interrelated and interconnected constitutional issues that are in need of democratic resolution, I believe that some kind of convention of the people or, if that is rejected, a Speaker’s Conference, which you might chair, Mr Speaker, is now the best way of ascertaining whether the United Kingdom can finally move from what is a 19th-century constitution to a modern, 21st-century one.
	If the Union is to survive, it will have to be built on the interdependence of our four nations, and it will have to guarantee equality of status within the United Kingdom. My argument tonight is that with the announcement of English votes for English laws, which means nothing other than restricting the right of Scottish Members to vote in this House, the Government are deliberately driving a wedge between Scotland and England and, in so doing, they have asked the wrong question, and they are now getting the wrong answer.
	However, at the very time that we should be attempting to unify and reconcile the four nations of the United Kingdom, building on the fact that the Scottish National party wants to be part of the UK currency, and on the fact that the nationalists’ economic case for independence has fallen as a result of the halving of oil prices, the Government have summarily rejected one of the central recommendations of the Smith commission, which they set up, which was:
	“MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.”
	The Conservative party has got this wrong, because it presumes, as Members now on the Government Benches have always said, that the fundamental anomaly in the British constitution is that Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws, whereas English MPs cannot vote on Scottish-only laws. In retaliation for what they see as Scots pursuing a Scottish interest, they wish to pursue and enshrine an English interest above a common UK interest that could bind us together.
	But what is called the West Lothian question is, in truth, only a symptom of the problems we have to deal with. The central anomaly, and the real asymmetry from which all else follows, is the basic, and indeed unchangeable, imbalance in the size of the four nations. England represents 84% of the UK population, Scotland represents 8%, Wales represents 5% and Northern Ireland represents 3%. England sends 533 Members to this House, compared with 59 from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland—117 in total against 533. It is obvious that when we start from such a profound imbalance and asymmetry—such a huge inequality in population and voting shares—fairness of outcome cannot easily be secured by a blanket uniformity that treats the minorities exactly the same as the majority. It follows that the rules needed to respect and reassure the minorities, who might always be outvoted, have to be different from those needed to uphold the majority.
	The challenge is not unique to Britain. The United States, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and many other countries have had to find ways of managing the gross inequalities in the size of their constituent parts without undermining their unity. As the price of keeping the United States together, California accepts that it has just two Members of the US Senate to represent its 38 million citizens, while Wyoming has the same number to represent just 500,000 citizens—one Senator for 250,000 people in one part of the country, and one Senator for 19 million in another.
	Similarly, the price New South Wales pays for Australian unity is having one Senator for every 580,000 people, in contrast to Tasmania’s one Senator for every 40,000. Fair treatment for minorities and national unity are achieved in the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates not by the crude and blanket uniformity that is characterised by English votes for English laws, but by special arrangements that recognise that minority rights have to be respected and upheld so that the provinces, states or nations can be held together in one Union.
	With the Leader of the House’s announcement that he would exclude Scottish representatives from voting on what he now calls consent motions, including annual consent motions on tax issues arising from the Budget, he is breaking with the old-established practice of other countries, breaking with our own constitutional history, and breaking with all sensible advice in creating what the Government now boast is the English veto, making ours the first and only Parliament in the world where two classes of representatives will exist and where some representatives are clearly more equal than others.
	By the Government’s own insistence on devolving all income tax to the Scottish Parliament and then using that as a pretext for banning Scottish MPs from voting on income tax here, there will be a constant national refrain that there are now first-class and second-class MPs: the English who rule and the Scots there on sufferance. I have to ask—

Bill Cash: rose—

Gordon Brown: I will give way after this. I have to ask Government Members this: can you imagine Scotland, or possibly Wales and Northern Ireland, being enthusiastic about sending MPs to this place indefinitely if they have to withdraw when the real vote on the Budget—the consent vote, or the veto motion—is being taken on this central economic legislation once a year: income tax rates in the Budget voted on by a consent motion that excludes Scottish and, in time, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs who also want devolution of taxation? Can we sustain truly positive support for one United Kingdom Parliament for long when it becomes clear that the Government of the day owe their existence to an English majority and ride roughshod over other representation? If anybody is in any doubt about the threat to the unity of the UK posed by English votes for English laws, they should take note of how Scottish National party Members, who want to break the Union, have become its biggest supporters.
	It was said of the Hapsburg monarchs that they would never learn from their mistakes. Surely the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should heed the lessons of history. For decades William Gladstone, when Prime Minister, tried to find a way of balancing what he called the rights of “outsiders”—in this case, the Irish after home rule—and “insiders” without breaking the Union, but then concluded in his final term that it
	“passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”.
	He was not alone, for in 1965, when Harold Wilson’s proposal for steel nationalisation was defeated by Ulster Unionist votes, he asked his Attorney-General to devise a formula for two tiers of MPs, and he could not do so. At that time, the Conservative party insisted: “Every Member of this House is equal with every other Member of this House and all of us will speak on all subjects.”

Bill Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: I will finish the history and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
	When, in 1972, the Kilbrandon royal commission again considered English votes for English laws, it concluded:
	“in our view, therefore, all Members of Parliament, whether or not they come from regions with their own legislative assemblies, must have the same rights of participation in the business of the House of Commons”.
	Then again, in 1977, when James Callaghan had to revisit the issue during the first Scotland Bill, the advice he received agreed with Gladstone that
	“no form of ‘in and out’ voting has been identified that would be sufficiently consistent with the basic features of our constitution to be workable”.
	It seems that a problem that could not be solved in two centuries the Prime Minister now claims he has mastered and resolved in just a few weeks. I have to say this: if after 50 years in politics and four periods as Prime Minister, Gladstone could not find an answer to this question, and if every subsequent Prime Minister since has found it unworkable and unanswerable within the Union, might it not be somewhat immodest for the Prime Minister, who set up his review in October and published the results in December, to say that he has found the answer in just eight weeks? Might not he have been modest enough at least to listen to and get some perspective from his old constitutional history tutor at university, Professor Bogdanor, who has argued—

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: Professor Bogdanor has argued that while
	“English votes for English laws seems at first sight a logical response to the English Question…it is in fact incoherent…a bifurcated government is a logical absurdity. A government must be collectively responsible to parliament for all the policies that come before it, not just a selection of them.”
	The reality is that EVEL, English votes for English laws, and this hunt for perfect symmetry in an asymmetrical world risk jeopardising the Union in the long term. Let me quote Mr Michael Portillo—this is probably what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants to say. Mr Portillo said only a few days ago:
	“I think it is creating daily a greater division between the two nations, which will lead to a sort of logic that the two nations should separate...The English mentality I think is now increasingly that the two nations are going in different directions: that if you’re a Scottish Member of Parliament you are a second-class citizen to an English Member of Parliament and you will be allowed to vote on certain matters.”
	If the Union fell now, it would not be because of what happened during the referendum, the result of which was conclusively against leaving the United Kingdom, but because of what happened since—[Interruption.] The Union will not fall because most Scots demanded independence from the United Kingdom—they did not—but because leaders failed to convince them that they were fully committed to its unity—[Interruption.] It will not fall because a majority of people today want to leave the United Kingdom but because people feel that there is a Scottish interest and an English interest and that the Government have not defended the UK interest.
	Sensible Conservatives recognise that. Commenting the morning after the referendum speech by the Prime Minister, Lord Strathclyde, author of the Conservatives’ own proposals on devolution, which rejected this approach, said:
	“If we are serious Unionist politicians we need to use the language of healing and strengthening...We started off perhaps with…a step in the wrong direction”.
	The Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Liberal party Member who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was blunter. He said of the Prime Minister’s speech that morning:
	“He went from being a Prime Minister who had absolutely done the right thing in the national interest to making a very partisan judgement on behalf of the Conservative party”.
	The implication was that the Prime Minister was putting the integrity of the United Kingdom second not to the express demands of the people of England but to the very vocal demands of the UK Independence party.

Bill Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: I will give way in a minute—[Laughter.] I am setting out my argument, and the hon. Gentleman will have to refute it.
	I have said nothing yet about the obvious technical problems of English votes for English laws.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, but go on. Briefly.

Angus MacNeil: Mr Speaker, will you give me some guidance on the difference between a debate and a lecture? Should a Member who has promised to give way not give way?

Mr Speaker: Let me make two points. It is very simple. First, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is perfectly in order. Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is bearing more than a striking resemblance to an over-ebullient puppy dog. That is not something we want to see in this Chamber. He should take an example in statemanship from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and calm himself.

Gordon Brown: I will give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

Angus MacNeil: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way? He has to sit down to give way.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned the Kilbrandon commission, and Labour said to that commission that it preferred a Tory Government to independence. Is that still his view?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. His colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was wrong to shout earlier that the majority of Scottish people wanted independence. The majority of Scottish people were clear that they did not want independence, and the sooner the SNP realises that it does not have a majority for that position the better.

Bill Cash: The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking several points. The first is the question of unfairness to the English voters. That is the key issue. Secondly, he asserts that there will be two classes of Members under our proposals. It is not about two classes of Members but two different functions. It was his Government and his party leader in 1996-97 who created the devolution arrangements without making proper recompense for the unfairness to the British voter. That is where the problem lies.

Gordon Brown: I have already proposed an English committee system that the hon. Gentleman should accept. He is forgetting the lessons of every other country in the world that is trying to hold together minorities in different parts of the country. They have to find a way of respecting the rights of minorities while upholding the majority. Nothing in yesterday’s EVEL proposals answered those problems. It is difficult to define what an English-only Bill is. If we take one possible definition of “separate and distinct effect”, constitutional lawyers say that that would encompass just half a dozen Bills in 10 years. That makes us ask why it has been proposed.
	English MPs vote normally as a bloc in the same way as UK MPs, which suggests that this move has been proposed for other reasons. Whatever the practical considerations, the real damage of English votes for English laws is not its mechanical application. The real damage, before a veto is imposed, is the creation of a perception that the United Kingdom is now only about separate interests and not a common interest.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gordon Brown: I am going to finish.
	There is a myth that the Union can survive this new polarisation between Scotland and England. The myth is that it is held together by bonds that are of such long standing that they can overcome what may be seen as a local difficulty. I say to the House, however, that what may have been true in the aftermath of the second world war and its shared sacrifice has given way to a new world where none of our ancient institutions is strong enough or popular enough on its own to hold us together.
	The Union cannot survive on mutual respect alone—it is in short supply at the moment—or just on the basis of mutual toleration, a minimalist policy of holding each other at a distance for fear that we will fight. The Union will hold together only if there are things that the people of our four nations believe they have in common; if we emphasise that there are common needs, mutual interests and similar values that make us want to co-operate; and, in short, if there is a belief that we do best by sharing. In the modern world, where countries survive or falter on the basis of a daily referendum of opinion, such sharing has to preserve our historical willingness to share risks and transfer resources between each other to tackle issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality.
	The 18th-century Prime Minister Lord North is today remembered for only one thing, which is that he lost America. Will this current Prime Minister—this is the statesman’s question—now act to ensure that he will not be remembered in history as the Lord North of the 21st century? On 19 September 2014, for purely short-term gain—putting party before country, without considering the long-term interests of our united country, and ignoring the need to reconcile people and bring them together—he may have lit a fuse that eventually blows the Union apart.
	I have made proposals for reform. I do not want us to pre-empt a constitutional review. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the position I am representing. The issue tonight is whether he can persuade his colleagues in the coalition Government and Government Members before it is too late.

Alistair Carmichael: May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this evening’s debate? It is very good to see the House so well attended and particularly animated, which is not always the case in our Adjournment debates.
	At the start of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said one thing with which nobody could take exception, which was that this is a time for us, through the work of the House, to bring unity to our four nations. For those of us who represent Scottish constituents at Westminster, that was very much the view expressed by the people of Scotland in a quite remarkable democratic exercise on 18 September. We would do well at all times to remember that.
	The right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by bringing this issue to the House tonight. The issue is entirely legitimate, and nothing will work less to the advantage of the Union than seeking in any way to deny that legitimacy or simply seeking to avoid it. It is absolutely right that all the political parties should look to address the issue, as indeed they are doing.
	As we look across the political landscape and address the various options available, it is only possible to conclude one thing—that there is no easy answer and absolutely no quick fix. If we try to achieve an easy answer or a quick fix, we run a very real risk of replacing the obvious and patent anomalies of the current constitutional settlement with new ones, which would place more pressure on the hinges of our United Kingdom at a time when those who would break it up remain vigilant for a chance to do so.

Bill Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Carmichael: If I may make a little progress, I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House laid out the proposals of the Conservative party. It is a matter of record that my party disagrees with that approach. Nor is it much of a secret that there is a range of views within the Conservative party, from those who believe that this issue is best left alone to those who want a more radical solution. There is not much consensus in that party, let alone between the parties in this House. However, there is a broad consensus here about keeping together our family of nations. That requires that this issue be considered carefully with an eye to a lasting settlement, not a short-sighted or short-term partisan advantage.

Bill Cash: Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposals that were agreed to tentatively by the Conservative party yesterday will not necessarily be the solution, because the real problem is that the new Parnell from Scotland, in the form of Mr Alex Salmond, will come down and use any opportunity relentlessly and ruthlessly to create as much chaos as possible, and thereby disrupt the United Kingdom?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Alex Salmond was here for many years and often sought to do exactly that. However, in terms of achievement, there was not a great deal to show for his time here. I therefore caution my hon. Friend about pre-judging the outcome of the election on 7 May and what the consequences of that outcome might be.
	My party has always been clear that any parliamentary vote involving English or English and Welsh MPs only should be held on the basis of a proportionate vote share from the previous election. Devolution to the constituent nations of our United Kingdom has always taken place on that basis, and for good reason. It would be wholly unjust effectively to devolve power to England or England and Wales in a way that distorted democratic opinion and passed unfair advantage to any party.
	The logical and lasting solution to this conundrum, in the view of my party, is the creation of a federal United Kingdom, in which England as a whole or in its constituent parts devolves powers from Westminster and, by extension, answers the West Lothian question. I accept, however, that we may be some way from that solution.
	The options can and should be considered by a constitutional convention, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath indicated. The convention should be empowered to look at all the anomalies and difficulties that we face. In that way, we can forge a consensus and build lasting solutions that strengthen the bonds of our United Kingdom, rather than threaten to break them.

Edward Leigh: It is important in this debate that we learn more about the Liberal plans for the proportional representation of MPs. It seems, with respect, that they could end in a really bonkers situation. What would happen if the Green party got 5% of the votes but only one MP? Would the Green party lady walk through the Lobby representing 20 other colleagues? What would happen if the Labour party got 38% of the popular vote but 43% of MPs? How would it be worked out in practice?

Alistair Carmichael: Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.
	It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.
	Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.

Pete Wishart: The Secretary of State has got part of his history wrong, because since the vow there is now the vow plus that has been advocated by the Labour party. We are in a constant state of flux and constitutional change in Scotland. Where do the Government see it ending? We have the vow plus from Labour, but what is the view of the UK Government?

Alistair Carmichael: I thought I was making a mistake in giving way, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question has confirmed that. His party did a brave thing in taking part in the Smith commission—for the first time ever, it was an historic moment to get all five parties from the Scottish Parliament around one table. He was part of that consensus; perhaps he did not like it and was one of those who put pressure on John Swinney and others to run away from the settlement that they had just signed up to.
	Rather than coming up with such points, the hon. Gentleman would do better first to calm down and relax a little, and he could then tell the House what he and his party will do with the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission. One thing he does not want to accept is that as a result of the Smith commission, Scotland will have the third most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. A tremendous amount of good can be done with the powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament, and that is where the debate ought to be, rather than the constant whinge about vows or vows plus.

Conor Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Carmichael: I am sorry but I am running out of time.
	The Government are doing everything we can to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, as recommended by Lord Smith, and hon. Members will know that on Monday I took an order through the House to deal with that very point.
	A great deal more could—indeed will—be said on this subject between now and 7 May. That is absolutely right, because to build a consensus we must make this Parliament fit for the whole United Kingdom, and such debates will be necessary. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for bringing the matter to the House this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.